[00:00:01]
WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.CAN WE START WITH ROLL CALL, PLEASE? MR. GARCIA? MR. SIPES? HERE.
MS. TACKETT? MR. LEASEMAN? HERE.
MS. GANS? MR. BROWN? MR. HAMLEY? HERE.
MR. MANNA? MR. CHERYL? PRESENT.
[Public Comment ]
WE MOVE ON TO CITIZENS TO BE HEARD? YES.NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS PUBLIC COMMENT.
DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT SIGNED IN FOR ANY OF THE ITEMS? WE HAVE ONE FOR ITEM SEVEN.
IS HE PRESENT HERE IN THE BUILDING? OKAY.
AND THEN I THINK WE HAVE SOME VOICEMAILS.
DO WE HAVE HIM SPEAK NOW OR, UM, WHEN THE ITEM IS HEARD, WHATEVER YOU PREFER.
UM, SIR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK NOW OR WHEN THE ITEM IS HEARD?
IF YOU CAN TURN ON THE MICROPHONE, SIR.
OKAY, Y'ALL READY? MY NAME IS JIM SMILE, AND I LIVE IN SAN ANTONIO AT 1 49 EAST ROSEWOOD AVENUE.
UH, I'D LIKE TO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TODAY.
I WANT TO ADDRESS THE REVISIONS TO SECTION 35 5 0 3 PUBLIC PARKLAND AND OPEN SPACE DEDICATION REQUIREMENT AMENDMENT ITEM 14 DASH NINE.
UH, MY ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND IS IN FOREST HYDROLOGY WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT.
AND I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE, BUT I'VE BEEN DOING IT FOR OVER 40 YEARS NOW.
AND, UM, ALSO IN INTEREST OF FULL TRANSPARENCY, I AM A MEMBER OF THE GREATER EDWARDS AQUIFER ALLIANCE BOARD.
UH, FIRST OFF, I WANNA APPLAUD YOU FOR THE INCLUSION OF THE CONSIDERATION OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF PARKLAND AND OPEN SPACES TO ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY IN THIS REVISION.
IT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE THESE ALSO SERVE A PROTECTION, UH, SERVE AS A FUNCTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF OUR SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER QUALITY.
UH, CURRENTLY WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ALMA CREEK, T C E Q LISTS AS IMPAIRED ALL OF THE STREAM SEGMENTS INSIDE LOOP FOUR 10 AND OUTSIDE OF LOOP FOUR 10, WHERE THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE WILL HAVE THE GREATEST APPLICABILITY.
THE DEGREE OF IMPAIRMENT OF STREAM SEGMENTS IS AS YET MUCH LESS.
BUT THE, AND THE PROPOSED, UH, AMENDMENTS WOULD UNDOUBTEDLY CONTRIBUTE TO MAINTAINING BETTER WATER QUALITY IN THESE AREAS.
I ALSO APPLAUD THE INCENTIVES FOR GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND NATURE-BASED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND THE PROPOSED REVISIONS, AS WELL AS THE PROTECTIONS TO ENSURE FUTURE LAND USES IN THE AREA MAINTAIN SIGNIFICANT PERVIOUS COVER.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO APPLAUD THE REQUIREMENTS THAT DE DEDICATED PARKLAND BE ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC.
THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO'S EQUITY POLICY AND ALIGNS WITH THE MARIN COUNCIL STATED GOALS OF CITIZENS HAVING ACCESS TO ALL THE BENEFITS THAT PARKS PROVIDE.
I WOULD, HOWEVER, LIKE TO SEE THE PUBLIC ACCESS BE MUCH HIGHER THAN 60% TO AVOID THAT PRIVATE AMENITIES, PARTICULARLY IN, UH, CLASS A MULTIFAMILY, BE CONSIDERED AS ACCESSIBLE, ACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTIONS FOR PARKLAND AND OPEN SPACES.
THESE ARE GOING TO BE INCLUDED ANYWAY IN MOST OF THESE, SO THEREFORE IT IS NOT REALLY INCREMENTAL.
UM, FURTHER AND CONSISTENT WITH THAT, I WOULD URGE REVISITING THE PARK FACILITIES CREDIT TABLE.
AS AMENITIES, THINGS SUCH AS ATHLETIC COURTS, SWIMMING POOLS, AND RECREATIONAL CENTER BUILDINGS ARE WONDERFUL, BUT THEY CERTAINLY DO NOT REPLACE OR PROVIDE FOR THE SAME FUNCTIONS THAT PARKLAND AND
[00:05:01]
OPEN SPACES DO.FINALLY, I THINK IT'S ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL FOR THE FEE AND LEW TO BE MARKED TO MARKET PRICES OF LAND OR OTHERWISE, IT WILL CONSTITUTE A LOOPHOLE THAT UNDERMINES THE ENTIRE INTENT OF THE, UH, OF THE REVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE.
A VERY QUICK LOOK AT DEVELOPABLE PROPERTIES FOR SALE IN AND AROUND SAN ANTONIO INDICATES THAT THE MINIMUM IS WELL POSED AND THE MAXIMUM OF 150,000 AND ACRES CONSISTENT WITH MANY, BUT NOT ALL LANDS LISTED PUBLICLY.
SIR, THAT IS YOUR THREE MINUTES.
UM, OKAY, I GUESS WE WILL, UH, GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO THE AGENDA.
I DO WANT THE MINUTES TO REFLECT THAT.
UM, WE DO, WE DO HAVE THREE VOICEMAILS TO, OH, OKAY.
8 1 7 WEST MAGNOLIA AVENUE AMENDMENT SIX DASH FIVE.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE, ON BEHALF OF THE TIER ONE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION, DEAR PTAC MEMBERS, THE TIER ONE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION IS GENERALLY IN SUPPORT OF THE FOOD POLICY COUNCIL'S AMENDMENT TO ADD COMMUNITY GARDENS AND URBAN FARMS TO SECTION 35 DASH 5 0 3 PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT.
AS LONG AS THOSE CANNOT BE LOCATED WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF GREEN SPACES ALLIANCE, MANY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, INCLUDING MANY INNER CITY NEIGHBORHOODS, HAVE BENEFITED FROM THE ADDITION OF A COMMUNITY GARDEN.
BEACON HILL IS CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF ADVOCATING FOR THE ABILITY TO HAVE A SMALL URBAN FARM IN ITS NEIGHBORHOOD AS AN EXPANSION OF THEIR COMMUNITY GARDEN.
THE PURPOSE OF THE FIVE YEAR AMENDMENT REVIEW IS TO BE ABLE TO EVALUATE AND UPDATE THE CODE, TO MEET CHANGES IN DEVELOPMENT, URBAN PLANNING AND CITIZENS' NEEDS.
THE ADDITION OF COMMUNITY GARDENS AND URBAN FARMS TO THE CODE IS REASONABLE AND TIMELY.
WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT AND MOVE IT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
SIMA COLVIN, 8 1 7 WEST MAGNOLIA AVENUE.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, DEAR O P TAC MEMBERS, AS A PERSON THAT IS VERY FAMILIAR WITH NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT ISSUES AND IS THE FORMER DISTRICT ONE REP ON THE CITY'S LINEAR CREEKWAY PARKS ADVISORY BOARD, I'M GENERALLY IN SUPPORT OF DIAZ PARKLAND DEDICATION AMENDMENT.
I BELIEVE THAT IT WILL BRING DEVELOPER ACTION REQUIREMENTS MORE IN LINE WITH CURRENT LAND VALUES DEVELOPMENT TRENDS VERSUS NEIGHBORHOOD NEEDS AND SUSTAINABILITY VIA THE USE OF NATURE-BASED GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FOR STORM WATER MANAGEMENT.
I STRONGLY SUPPORT THE ADDITION OF THE REQUIREMENT THAT A MINIMUM PERCENTAGE OF THE SURFACE OF THE PROPERTY TO BE USED TO MEET THE PARKS AND OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT MUST REMAIN IN A OUS CONDITION.
AND I SUPPORT THE ADDITION OF AN ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENT.
DEVELOPERS ARE ANXIOUS TO CONNECT THEIR PROJECTS TO OUR CITY TRAILS ACCESSIBILITY NEEDS TO GO BOTH WAYS.
DEVELOPMENTS GET ACCESS TO OUR PUBLIC TRAILS, AND THE PUBLIC GETS ACCESS TO THE PARKLAND DEVELOPED AS PART OF A SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENT.
IT IS NO SECRET THAT LAND VALUES HAVE INCREASED SIGNIFICANTLY IN THE LAST DECADE.
OUT OF FAIRNESS TO THE CITIZENS OF SAN ANTONIO.
THE DEVELOPER'S ACTION FEE FOR THE FEE IN LIEU OF OPTION NEEDS TO BE INCREASED TO REFLECT CURRENT MARKET VALUES.
AS STATED ON THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LANDS WEBSITE UNDER THE 2021 SAN ANTONIO PARK SCORE, AND I QUOTE, MAYOR RON NUREMBERG HAS PLEDGED TO ADOPT LONG-TERM SYSTEM-WIDE STRATEGIES TO MAKE SURE EVERY SAN ANTONIO RESIDENT HAS ACCESS TO ALL THE BENEFITS PARKS PROVIDE IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE MAYOR'S GOAL.
STRONG PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT CODES NEED TO BE EMBEDDED IN OUR U D C DUE TO THE NUMBER OF PARKLAND DEDICATION AMENDMENTS, AND THE DESIRE TO TAKE THE BEST OF EACH AS OPPOSED TO ACCEPTING ONE AND DENYING ANOTHER.
I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THIS CATEGORY OF AMENDMENTS REVIEWED BY SUBCOMMITTEE.
IN LIEU OF THAT, I ASK YOU TO SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT IN SOME FORM AND MOVE IT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION.
ALDEN 8 1 7 WEST MAGNOLIA AVENUE AMENDMENT SEVEN DASH ONE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER NINE.
DEAR PTAC MEMBERS, AS A PERSON THAT HAS SPENT THE BETTER PART OF THE LAST 15 YEARS WORKING ON NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT ISSUES, HAVING SERVED ON PTAC AND AS THE DISTRICT ONE REP ON THE CITY'S LINEAR CREEK WASTE PARKS ADVISORY BOARD, I AM GENERALLY IN SUPPORT OF THE PARK DEPARTMENT'S PARKLAND DEDICATION AMENDMENT INTENDED TO INCREASE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR FEE IN LIEU OF DOLLARS TO BE EXACTED AND SPENT IN DIFFERENT AREAS
[00:10:01]
OF THE CITY.RESEARCH BY THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LANDS HAS POINTED OUT THAT A REQUIREMENT TO USE THE FILE OF FUNDS WITHIN A CERTAIN RADIUS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT FROM WHICH IT WAS EXACTED, IS TOO RESTRICTIVE AND RESULTS IN VERY LITTLE NEW PARKLAND RESEARCH INDICATES, AND SANDY JENKINS OF THE PARKS DEPARTMENT CONFIRMED TO ME THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE FI MONEY IS USED FOR PARK IMPROVEMENTS BECAUSE IT IS TOO DIFFICULT TO ACQUIRE AND AGGREGATE ENOUGH LAND TO BUILD A PARK WITHIN THE RADIUS.
IN ADDITION, MOST DEVELOPERS CHOOSE TO DEVELOP PARKLAND AS AN AMENITY WITHIN THEIR SUBDIVISION.
AND USE OF THESE PARKS IS OFTEN NOT PUBLIC.
THE COMBINATION OF THESE TWO TROOPS IS THAT THERE IS NOT ENOUGH MONEY COLLECTED THROUGH PHILO TO ACHIEVE OUR GOALS AND TOO MANY PARKS BEING BUILT THAT ARE NOT ACCESSIBLE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
MY SUPPORT FOR THIS AMENDMENT IS CONTINGENT ON SOME VERSION OF THE GREATER EDWARDS AQUIFER ALLIANCE PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT AMENDMENTS ALSO BEING MOVED FORWARD TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO PROVIDE THE STICK TO THE PARKS CARRIER.
DUE TO THE NUMBER OF PARKLAND DEDICATION AMENDMENTS AND THE DESIRE TO TAKE THE BEST OF EACH AS OPPOSED TO ACCEPTING ONE AND DENYING ANOTHER, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THIS CATEGORY OF AMENDMENTS REVIEWED BY A SUBCOMMITTEE.
IN LIEU OF THAT, I ASK YOU TO SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT IN SOME FORM AND MOVE IT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION.
THOSE ARE ALL THE, THOSE ARE ALL THE VOICEMAILS WE HAVE.
CAN WE DO, WE DO HAVE SOME WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED FOR AMENDMENT NUMBER 14 DASH NINE.
WE RECEIVED FIVE WRITTEN COMMENTS IN SUPPORT FOR AMENDMENT NUMBER 18 DASH SEVEN.
WE RECEIVED ONE WRITTEN COMMENT IN SUPPORT FOR AMENDMENT SEC, UH, AMENDMENTS AFFECTING SECTION 35 DASH 5 0 3.
WE RECEIVED ONE WRITTEN COMMENT IN SUPPORT FOR AMENDMENT NUMBER FIVE DASH 4 2 1 WRITTEN COMMENT IN SUPPORT FOR AMENDMENT SIX DASH FIVE, ONE WRITTEN COMMENT IN SUPPORT, AND FOR AMENDMENT NUMBER SEVEN DASH ONE, ONE WRITTEN COMMENT IN SUPPORT.
ALL OF THESE WRITTEN COMMENTS WERE FORWARDED TO THE P TAC THIS MORNING.
AND THAT IS ALL FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
WE, WE DO HAVE ONE ADDITIONAL, UH, SPEAKER WHO'S JUST SIGNED UP.
UM, MICHAEL TAYLOR, DID YOU WANNA WAIT UNTIL WE GOT TO THAT INDIVIDUAL ITEM? OKAY.
CAN, CAN Y'ALL HEAR LOGAN'S MICROPHONE? IT'S VERY FAINT.
ARE YOU, UH, MY, OUR AV TEAM? I KNOW YOU'RE LISTENING.
IF YOU COULD TURN HIS MICROPHONE UP, I'D APPRECIATE IT.
WE'RE READY TO, ARE WE READY TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEMS? YES.
I JUST WANT THE MINUTES TO REFLECT THAT.
UM, MR. GARCIA, MS. TACKETT AND MS. MANNA ARE NOW PRESENT.
[New Business ]
OKAY.SO WE CAN MOVE ON TO, UM, ITEM NUMBER ONE, AMENDMENT 18 DASH SEVEN.
DOUG MELNICK, CHIEF SUSTAINABILITY OFFICER, CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.
UM, SO THERE HAVEN'T BEEN ANY, UH, AMENDMENTS SINCE THE LAST TIME, UH, THAT WE SPOKE, BUT WE DID WORK WITH C P SS ON IDENTIFYING THE THREE DEFINITIONS, UM, THAT WERE, THAT WERE REQUESTED.
UM, SO SHOULD WE JUST PULL, PULL THOSE UP.
AND I THINK THE GOAL WAS TO FIND, UM, LANGUAGE THAT CAPTURED THE INTENT WITHOUT GETTING INTO TOO MUCH DETAIL.
SO YOU'LL SEE WE HAVE A SOLAR FARM.
IT'S AN INSTALLATION, UM, OR AREA OF LAND OR WATER IN WHICH A COLLECTION OF SOLAR ARRAYS ARE SET UP FOR THE PRIMARY PURPOSE TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY AND IS CONNECTED AT UTILITY VOLTAGE.
UM, A SOLAR ARRAY, UH, IS A COLLECTION OF LINKED SOLAR PANELS, ALSO KNOWN AS PHOTOVOLTAIC PANELS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF ELECTRICITY.
SO THAT'S VERY MUCH THE BASIC, UM, SOLAR UNIT.
UH, AND THEN THE SOLAR CANOPY IS AN ELEVATED STRUCTURE THAT HOSTS SOLAR ARRAYS AND PROVIDE SHADE.
UH, THE SOLAR CANOPY IS TYPICALLY INSTALLED IN PARKING LOTS, PLAYGROUND AREAS OR OTHER PAVED AREAS.
UM, SO THOSE ARE THE THREE, UH, DEFINITIONS.
AND BE HAPPY TO, TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR HEAR YOUR COMMENTS.
TEAL IS, THERE'S NO DEFINITION OF SIZE BETWEEN AN ARRAY AND A FARM? NO, AND WE HAD, WE HAD ACTUALLY HAD A QUITE A BIT OF CON I SAY QUITE A BIT.
WE HAD SOME CONVERSATION AROUND THAT.
I THINK THERE, UM, IT'S SORT OF A CAN OF WORMS AND AN ARRAY IS SORT OF LIKE THE BASE UNIT, UH, A FARM.
SOLAR FARM TENDS TO BE SORT OF LARGER.
UM, BUT WE DIDN'T WANT TO PICK A SPECIFIC SIZE BECAUSE
[00:15:01]
THAT WAS FAIRLY ARBITRARY.I THINK THE KEY WITH THE SOLAR FARM IS THAT IS A PRIMARY USE AS OPPOSED TO AN ACCESSORY USE.
SO, UM, YOU COULDN'T HAVE A, A SOLAR FARM IN A NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT.
DOUG, WERE THESE DEFINITIONS FROM A A, AN INDUSTRY SOURCE OR REALLY JUST KIND OF COMPILATION OF WORKING WITH C P SS AND YOUR DEPARTMENT? SO THE INTERESTING THING IS, I WENT TO A WHOLE BUNCH OF SOURCES THAT I THOUGHT WOULD HAVE DEFINITIONS AND THERE WERE NO DEFINITIONS.
AND SO THIS WAS VERY MUCH SORT OF CROWDSOURCING WHAT WE FOUND ONLINE AND THEN WORKING WITH THE TECHNICAL EXPERTS AT C P S TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY WERE PRACTICAL.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS MR. HANLEY? YES, DOUG, I, I SEE ALL OF THE MODIFICATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE SINCE THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS.
AND I NOTED THAT TO MY CONCERN OR AN ISSUE, UH, FOR DESIGN STANDARDS, LIKE UNDER SITE DEVELOPMENT FOR ROOFTOP SOLAR ARRAYS OR UNDER SOLAR CANOPIES.
YOU'VE TAKEN THOSE ITEMS WHICH ARE INDICATIVE OF DESIGNS STANDARDS, WHICH I THINK LEGAL SAID THAT THEY CAN'T DO THAT.
MY QUESTION IS, IS NOT NOW THAT, THAT HAS BEEN REMOVED, IS UNDER SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
THE SOLAR PANEL ARRAY SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED TO A HEIGHT THAT DOES NOT REASONABLY INTERFERE WITH OTHER ACTIVITIES AND USES.
AND MY QUESTION IS, CAN YOU ADD, AND THIS GOES BACK TO YOU DOUG, OR LEGAL, THE SOLAR PANEL ARRAY SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED TO A HEIGHT AND LOCATION THAT DOES NOT REASONABLY INTERFERE WITH OTHER ACTIVITIES AND USES.
BECAUSE AS I STATED IN PREVIOUS MEETINGS, I WAS WORRIED ABOUT PUTTING SOLAR RAYS IN THE FRONT OF A BUILDING WHERE YOU CAN'T FIND THE ENTRY OR THE MAIN ACCESS TO THE BUILDING.
I'LL DEFER, UH, TO CITY ATTORNEY.
ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT CAME UP WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT LOCATION, I MEAN, UM, THAT USUALLY YOU DEFER TO THE INSTALLER FOR THE MAXIMUM, YOU KNOW, UH, SOLAR IMPACTOR, THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WENT FORWARD IN THE TESTIMONY AT THE STATE LEGISLATURE.
UM, SO I'D BE, UH, A LITTLE HESITANT TO, TO KIND OF, UM, YOU KNOW, PUT THAT TYPE, TYPE OF REGULATION IN THERE.
NOW THAT BEING SAID, THEY STILL OBVIOUSLY WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH, UM, ALL THE OTHER REGULATIONS OUT THERE AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, FIRE CODE ACCESS OR A D A OR WHATEVER ELSE.
YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE A, A A, YOU KNOW, A PATHWAY OR, OR A AREA OF TRAVEL THAT'S SUPPOSED TO, UH, BE UNOBSTRUCTED.
JOSEPH, I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND THE ISSUE, UH, IT APPEARS TO NOT TO INTERFERE WITH THE STATE LAW THAT TALKS ABOUT THE POSITIONING.
I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT POSITIONING, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE ACTUAL LOCATION OF THE SOLAR PANEL, NOT HOW YOU POSITION IT TO THE SOUTH OR THE SOUTHEAST OR THE SOUTHWEST, BUT HOW YOU POSITION IT SO IT DOESN'T BLOCK THE FRONT ENTRY TO A, A PROJECT OR A BUILDING.
SO I I, I THINK THAT IF YOU'RE GONNA SAY, CONSTRUCT IT TO A HEIGHT, DOES THIS NOT REASONABLY INTERFERE WITH OTHER ACTIVITIES AND USES WHY YOU CAN'T ADD LOCATION ALSO NOT THE ANGLE, NOT THE POSITIONING, BUT THE ACTUAL LOCATION ALSO JUST REMINDS YOU THAT, UH, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE BUILDING CODES THAT WOULD PREVENT UNDER, EVEN IF YOU APPROVE THIS AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED FOR THE U D C, THAT WOULD PREVENT A SOLAR PANEL FROM ARRAY BEING PLACED ALL OVER THE FRONT FACADE OR ENTRY OF A BUILDING.
SO ONE OF THE THINGS, UM, JUST SPOKE WITH THE ATTORNEYS.
YOU KNOW, I, I, WE MIGHT, I'D BE OKAY WITH STRIKING THAT, THAT LANGUAGE AROUND THE HEIGHT.
'CAUSE I THINK IT, IT, IT DOES TO YOUR CONCERN, IT GETS TO THE SIMILAR, ARE WE TRYING TO REGULATE DESIGN? AND SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE'D, WE'D BE OKAY WITH STRIKING THAT ONE AS HE'D RATHER ADD, HE'D RATHER ADD, HE'S TRYING TO ADD.
AND I THINK, AND I THINK THE CONCERN IS THAT ADDING IT IS WOULDN'T BE, WOULDN'T BE APPROPRIATE.
'CAUSE IT'S, THIS IS BIANCA, IS THERE ANY WAY TO ADD LANGUAGE THAT, THAT IS SUGGESTIVE AS OPPOSED TO MANDATORY? I MEAN, WE'RE DEALING WITH THE SAME THING IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS AND CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, AND I KNOW THAT THEY ARE NOT, THEY CAN'T MANDATE IT, BUT CAN YOU GENERALLY SAY THAT IT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE WITHOUT MANDATING IT SOMETHING LIKE SITE LOCATION SHOULD CONSIDER VISIBILITY ACCESS? CORRECT.
YOU KNOW, AND PROXIMITY TO FRONT DOOR RATHER THAN SAY HAS TO.
I LIKE THAT YOU COULD POTENTIALLY,
[00:20:01]
I MEAN, YOU CAN'T PROTECT FROM STUPID THAT THE CAR DEALERS DID, BUT I MEAN, YOU COULD POTENTIALLY ADD SOME LANGUAGE, BUT IT, IT WOULDN'T BE ENFORCEABLE.UM, SO IT'S, IT IS JUST COMPLETELY SUGGESTIVE.
UM, AND, AND IF I MAY, THIS IS MELISSA RAMIREZ.
UM, YOU KNOW, TYPICALLY WHEN WE HAVE LANGUAGE LIKE THAT, WE'RE PUTTING THAT IN THE PREAMBLE.
UM, BUT YOU KNOW, THE BEGINNING OF THE SECTIONS OF THE CODE, UM, SO THAT'S AN OPTION TO PUT IT IN THERE JUST TO, YOU KNOW, THAT COMMON SENSE TYPE OF UNDERSTANDING.
DOUG, I, I DO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE, AND I COMMEND THAT AND I'M IN FAVOR OF THAT, BUT PLACEMENT ON A SITE THAT, DO WE DRIVE DOWN THE STREET AND, AND ALL WE SEE ARE SOLAR PANELS IN FRONT OF BUILDINGS AND WE DON'T SEE THE BUILDINGS ANYMORE.
THIS IS THE, YOU KNOW, THE DEVIL'S IN THE DETAIL.
ROBERT, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT PUTTING BOTH HEIGHT AND LOCATION SHOULDS CONSIDER INTO THE PREAMBLE? I, I LIKE THAT, KARA, I THINK THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE CLOSER TO THE ISSUE.
WE WANNA, YOU WANNA PROPOSE SOME LANGUAGE HERE SUCH THAT DOUG DOESN'T HAVE TO COME BACK NEXT WEEK.
I KNOW CITY STAFF'S LOOKING AT US LIKE, DEAR GOD, PLEASE DON'T DO THAT.
JOSEPH NEEDS, COULD WE DO THAT IN THIS MEETING AND NOT COME BACK AGAIN NEXT WEEK? PLEASE, IF YOU WANNA, I MEAN, I'VE REALLY ENJOYED TALKING ABOUT THIS ITEM, BUT IF, IF WE WANNA TABLE THIS ITEM SO WE CAN HAVE A SIDEBAR CONVERSATION, I'M SURE WE CAN COME UP WITH SOME LANGUAGE TO PUT INTO THE PREAMBLE.
I WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL UNDERSTANDING THAT THE, UH, DEFINITIONS WE'RE PART OF THE DISCUSSION AS WELL FOR THIS ITEM.
SO IF EVERYONE WAS OKAY WITH THAT, UM, WE WOULD END UP TABLING THAT CONVERSATION AS WELL.
SO ALL OF THIS IS IN ONE ITEM AT THE END OF THE MEETING.
SORRY, DOUG, DO YOU A MOTION THREE FOR THREE TABLE.
DO WE NEED A MOTION TO TABLE? YES.
CAN I GET A MOTION? OH, AND COMMITTEE, IF YOU CAN PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME BEFORE THE MOTION, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW EVERYBODY, SO IT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL FOR ME.
JUDY, WELL, I CAN'T SEE DOWN THIS ROW.
IS, IS THIS OKAY, APPROVAL OF THE ENTIRE, I'M SORRY.
IS THIS APPROVAL FOR APPROVAL OF THE ENTIRE NO, THIS IS JUST TO, UH, TABLE IT TOWARD, UH, THE END OF THE MEETING STAFF DEVELOP.
MIKE WANTS ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE CHAIRMAN, I WOULD, UH, UH, REMOVE THAT.
WE TABLE THIS AND UNTIL STAFF AND CITY LEGAL HAS A CHANCE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE THAT I BROUGHT UP.
SO IT'S A MOTION BY MR. AND KILLING ANY DEFINITIONS.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
IAN BENAVIDEZ, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND HOUSING SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
UM, SO I'M HERE TODAY TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
UM, THIS AMENDMENT REALLY SEEKS TO DO, UM, ONE THING WHICH IS TO ALIGN, UM, THE DEFINITION OF AFFORDABILITY THAT HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL SAN ANTONIO HOUSING AUTHORITY, UM, SOON TO BE THE SAN ANTONIO HOUSING TRUST IN BEXAR COUNTY.
UM, WITH WHAT, WITH WHAT IS IN THE U D C CURRENTLY? UH, CURRENTLY IN THE U D C, IT DOES REFERENCE, UM, THE STANDARDS FOR AFFORDABILITY FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT.
UM, BUT IT MAKES, UH, ONLY TWO DISTINCTIONS.
ONE IS BETWEEN LOW INCOME HOUSING AND VERY LOW INCOME HOUSING.
LOW INCOME HOUSING AT 80%, AND VERY LOW INCOME HOUSING AT 50%.
WHAT WE'RE SEEKING TO DO IS, AGAIN, ALIGN IT WITH WHAT WE'VE ADOPTED THROUGH OUR STRATEGIC HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, WHICH DOES TWO THINGS.
UH, IT SETS THAT AFFORDABILITY STILL USING THAT DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT STANDARD, BUT IT DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN SINGLE FAMILY, UH, A HOME OWNERSHIP AND MULTIFAMILY RENTAL.
AND IT SETS THE MULTIFAMILY RENTAL AT 60% OF THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME AND THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME OWNERSHIP AT 120% OF THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME.
UM, SO THAT'S WHAT THIS AMENDMENT SEEKS TO DO.
THAT'S WHAT THIS LANGUAGE REFLECTS.
UM, AND HEARING SOME OF THE CONVERSATION THAT HAPPENED LAST WEEK, UM, WE DID SPEAK WITH SOME MORE STAKEHOLDERS AND, YOU KNOW, STAFF WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF USING THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS AS EXACTLY ADOPTED THROUGH THE STRATEGIC HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.
UM, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE ESSENTIALLY THE EXACT SAME.
WE TRIED TO STREAMLINE IT A LITTLE BIT THROUGH THROUGH HOUSING COMMISSION DISCUSSION, UM, BUT IF MORE DETAIL NEEDS TO BE ADDED INTO BETTER ALIGN WITH THAT STRATEGIC HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, WE WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF USING THAT EXACT DEFINITION.
SO JUST AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO YOU FOR YOU ALL TO CONSIDER, UM, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING ELSE THAT THAT STAFF HAS LOOKED AT.
AND ACTUALLY, DID WE HAVE A CITIZEN TO BE HEARD? I'M SORRY.
UH, WE TYPICALLY, UM, YES WE DO, BUT, AND WE GO AHEAD AND ALLOW
[00:25:01]
THE OPENING OF THE ITEM, AND SO THEN WE CAN HEAR ADDITIONAL, UH, COMMENTS AS NEEDED.BUT, UH, IF YOU'RE DONE, WE CAN MOVE ON OR DO YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT THE, UM, DOCUMENT THAT WAS DISTRIBUTED EARLIER? OH, ABSOLUTELY.
SO WHAT WAS, UH, SENT TO YOU ALL LAST WEEK? UH, IS THIS ONE PAGE DOCUMENT HERE? THIS JUST GOES THROUGH A LITTLE BIT OF THE BACKGROUND.
SO I TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE STRATEGIC HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN THAT WAS ADOPTED LATE LAST YEAR, BUT REALLY THE WORK ON THIS BEGAN IN 2018.
UM, THE HOUSING POLICY FRAMEWORK THAT WAS ACCEPTED BY COUNCIL REALLY SET THIS IN MOTION.
IT RECOMMENDED THE CREATION OF A, A GROUP THAT REALLY WAS TO LOOK AT U D C AMENDMENTS.
UM, AND ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT THEY DID AS THEY STARTED GOING THROUGH THAT PROCESS IS THEY SAID, HEY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING THROUGH THE U D C AND IT'S GOT THIS DEFINITION HERE, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S WHAT YOU ALL WANT US TO USE HOUSING COMMISSION.
SO THEY ASKED THE HOUSING COMMISSION TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.
THE HOUSING COMMISSION WENT THROUGH A VERY LONG PROCESS WORKING WITH STAKEHOLDERS, THE PUBLIC, UH, UTILITIES VIA, YOU NAME IT.
UM, THAT WAS ABOUT A SIX MONTH PROCESS, AND THEN WE ROLLED THAT INTO THE STRATEGIC HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.
UM, AND SO IT TOOK, TOOK QUITE A WHILE, AND THEN WITH COVID TOOK A LITTLE BIT LONGER.
UM, BUT IT'S BEEN A PROCESS, UM, THAT I THINK HAS BEEN VERY THOROUGH AND HAS, YOU KNOW, RESULTED IN THIS DEFINITION.
UM, I JUST GO THROUGH THE ISSUE THERE THAT I SENT TO YOU ALL, WHICH IS THE EXISTING DEFINITION.
UM, WHAT IS PROPOSED ON THE, ON THE ONE PAGER THAT WE SENT YOU ALL IS ACTUALLY, THAT'S THE VERBATIM LANGUAGE THAT'S ADOPTED IN THE SHIP.
SO IT'S A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT'S UP THERE, BUT JUST SO YOU CAN SEE, UM, IT DOESN'T CHANGE ANY OF THE SUBSTANTIVE, UM, WAY THAT WE WOULD IMPLEMENT IT OR LOOK AT THE DEFINITION.
IT STILL KEEPS THOSE HUD AMIS AS RECOMMENDED.
UM, AND THEN I KNOW THAT THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS LAST WEEK ABOUT AFFORDABILITY PERIODS AND HOW THIS WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED.
UM, AND SO THE WAY THE DEFINITION IS CURRENTLY USED RIGHT NOW, IT'S REALLY LOOKING AT WHAT IS THAT A M I THRESHOLD.
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, COVENANTS, LAND USE RESTRICTIONS AND WHAT THOSE AFFORD AFFORDABILITY PERIODS ARE, THAT'S TYPICALLY DONE UPFRONT BASED ON THE FUNDING SOURCE THAT'S USED.
SO IF YOU'RE USING, YOU KNOW, LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS, THEY KIND OF SET THOSE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR WHAT THOSE AFFORDABILITY PERIODS ARE.
UM, IF YOU GET MONEY FROM SOME OF OUR FEDERAL, UH, SOURCES LIKE HOME AND C D B G, THEY MAY HAVE A REQUIREMENT.
AND THEN IT'S ALSO DEPENDENT ON THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING THAT WE PROVIDE.
SO WE DON'T ASK THE, THE, THE HOMEOWNER TO HAVE THE SAME AFFORDABILITY PERIOD, UM, IF WE'RE GIVING 'EM $5,000 VERSUS IF WE'RE GIVING SOMEBODY $50,000, WE ADJUST THAT BASED OFF OF, UH, HOW MUCH FUNDING IS BEING AWARDED.
SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE LOOK AT, UH, AND WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS TAKEN CARE OF, YOU KNOW, EARLIER ON WITH THE FUNDING AND NOT NECESSARILY ON THE BACKEND, WHICH IS THE INTENT OF THE U D C, UM, IS TO JUST MEET THOSE THRESHOLDS FOR AFFORDABILITY.
SO I HOPE THAT HELPS ANSWER SOME OF YOUR QUESTIONS, BUT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANYMORE.
DOES, UH, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? DID WE HAVE SOMEBODY THAT WANTED TO SPEAK FROM THE PUBLIC? OH, OKAY.
WHAT'D YOU SAY? SHE SAID THAT WHEN YOU SPEAK, SAY YOUR NAME, IS THAT WHAT, SAY YOUR NAME.
ANYWAY, I'M, UH, I'M READING THE, THE POINT NUMBER TWO IN THERE THAT TALKS ABOUT THE, THE, THE, UH, INCOME OF NOT BEING MORE THAN 120% OF INCOME.
UH, DOES, ARE YOU ON THE U D C AMENDMENT OR ON HIS ATTACHMENT THEY PROVIDED? WELL, EITHER ONE.
THE LANGUAGE IS OF BOTH THE LANGUAGE OF BOTH.
I'M, I'M JUST ONE ASK QUESTION.
THIS SUGGESTS TO ME THAT THAT, UH, SOMEONE WHOSE INCOME IS LIKE 118% IS STILL UNAFFORDABLE.
IS THAT, WHAT IS THAT RIGHT? IS THAT WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE? SO 118% IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE HOME OWNERSHIP MODEL, SO IT'S ANYTHING AT 120% OR BELOW, IT'S CONSIDERED AFFORDABLE.
AND THEN THERE'S THE DEEPLY AFFORDABLE, WHICH WOULD BE 80% AND BELOW.
SO FOR HOME OWNERSHIP, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT.
SO WHAT WE'RE SAYING THAT THE, IN SAN ANTONIO, THAT THAT ABILITY TO HAVE HOME OWNERSHIP IS, IS THAT IF THE INCOME IS THAT LOW, THAT YOU HAVE TO BE 120% OF THE AVERAGE TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD SOMETHING.
SO WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY SETTING THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE CITY, BUT WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THROUGH THE WORK THAT WE'VE DONE, AND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT AFFORDABILITY, SOMEONE WHO IS MAKING AT 120% IS CONSIDERED AN AFFORDABLE, AT THAT AFFORDABLE THRESHOLD FOR CERTAIN INCENTIVES AND PROGRAMS. SO IF THEY WANNA BE ELIGIBLE FOR SOME OF THE FUNDING THAT WE ADMINISTER AS A DEPARTMENT, UM, SAY WE'RE RELEASING FUNDS FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOME OWNERSHIP, THEY NEED TO SELL THEIR HOMES AT A PRICE POINT THAT IS AFFORDABLE TO SOMEBODY AT 120 OR BELOW.
SO IT COULD BE 118, COULD BE 115.
TEAL, CAN YOU STATE WHAT THE MEDIAN INCOME IS THAT MIGHT ILLUSTRATE IT A LITTLE BETTER FOR US? SO THE, THE MEDIAN INCOME RIGHT NOW IS 72,000 OF, FOR SAN ANTONIO.
[00:30:01]
AREA, WHICH IS INCUMBENT OF NOT JUST SAN ANTONIO, BUT ALSO NEW BRAUNFELS.WHAT IS THE RATIONALE FOR THE THIRTY, SIXTY EIGHTY A HUNDRED TWENTY? ON WHAT BASIS, WHAT IS THE RATIONALE FOR, FOR USING THOSE THRESHOLDS? SO, UM, THERE ARE CURRENTLY THRESHOLDS THAT EXIST RIGHT NOW THAT ARE PRETTY TYPICAL, AND THOSE ARE 80%, AND THESE ARE SET BY HUD 80% AND BELOW IS AFFORDABLE FOR MULTIFAMILY.
AND TYPICALLY 120 IS WHAT THEY USE FOR SINGLE FAMILY.
UM, SO THE ANALYSIS THAT THE HOUSING COMMISSION DID IS THEY LOOKED AT CITY OF SAN ANTONIO SPECIFICALLY AND HOW IT RELATES TO, UM, THE OTHER OUTLYING MUNICIPALITIES THAT ARE INCLUDED IN HUD'S DEFINITION.
SO THE REASON WE REDUCED FROM 80 TO 60 FOR MULTIFAMILY IS BECAUSE THE INCOME LEVELS IN SAN ANTONIO, IF YOU LOOK AT CENSUS DATA, ARE ACTUALLY LOWER THAN NEW BRAUNFELS, ALMA HEIGHTS, SOME OF THE AREAS THAT ARE INCLUDED.
SO THAT WAS THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE HOUSING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO REDUCE THAT DOWN TO 60%, 120% STAYED THERE.
THERE'S LESS, UH, FLUCTUATION BETWEEN HOME OWNERSHIP.
AND HOME OWNERSHIP DOES HAVE A LOT OF OTHER FACTORS TO CONSIDER.
UM, YOU KNOW, YOU NEED TO QUALIFY FOR A MORTGAGE, SO IT'S NOT RENTAL WHERE YOU HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE OPTIONS.
UM, SO THERE'S, THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER FACTORS THAT THE HOUSING COMMISSION CONSIDERED WHEN THEY MADE THAT RECOMMENDATION FROM.
AND THE 30% AND THE 30%, UM, THAT WAS ALSO PART OF THE DISCUSSION.
SO IF YOU ARE, UM, TYPICALLY DOING A, UH, TRADITIONAL MULTIFAMILY DEAL, UM, IT IS ACTUALLY BROKEN UP, UH, CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW AS VERY LOW INCOME IS THAT 30% AND BELOW.
UH, AND THEN THERE'S ALSO BREAKS AT 50, UM, 60 AND 80.
SO WE LEFT SOME OF THOSE BREAKS THE SAME.
UM, BUT 30% IS USUALLY THE LOWEST YOU CAN GO BEFORE YOU START GETTING INTO THINGS LIKE PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING WHERE INDIVIDUALS, YOU KNOW, CAN'T REALLY AFFORD TO MAINTAIN, UM, INCOME FOR RENT RENTAL LEVEL.
SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE WANTED TO HIT.
AND THEN THOSE WERE ALSO REFLECTED IN THE NEED ANALYSIS THAT WE DID.
SO IF YOU GO ON THE BACK PAGE, WE'VE GOT A LINK THERE TO OUR STRATEGIC HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.
BUT ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE DID IS WE LOOKED AT THE INCOMES IN SAN ANTONIO AND WE LOOKED AT WHERE THE NEED WAS ACROSS THE CITY, AND THAT IS A VERY LARGE AREA NEED.
IS THAT 30% AND BELOW OF THE AREA MEDIA INCOME? YES.
JUST CURIOUS, UM, WAS THIS SECTION IN THEIR ORIGINAL U D C WHEN IT WAS ADOPTED? THE ORIGINAL U D C ONLY HAD THESE EXISTING DEFINITIONS OF LOW INCOME HOUSING AND VERY LOW INCOME HOUSING.
AND AS FAR AS I KNOW, THOSE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN IN THERE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WERE ADDED AT SOME POINT.
UM, SO YEAH, THEY'VE BEEN IN THERE, WE'RE JUST AMENDING THEM TO BETTER ALIGN WITH THE WAY THAT WE'RE GONNA IMPLEMENT OUR, OUR PROGRAMS AND OUR POLICIES GOING FORWARD.
IS THIS THE FIRST TIME THIS SECTION HAS BEEN AMENDED? I BELIEVE SO.
I THINK WHEN THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UH, SECTIONS OF THE CODE WERE FIRST IMPLEMENTED, ALL OF THIS WAS IN THERE AT THAT TIME.
NOW THAT THE POLICIES AT, AND, UM, A LOT OF THE GOALS HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY COUNCIL, THIS IS THE NEXT STEP IS TO ALIGN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE WITH WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN ADOPTED.
ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? MALDONADO? I JUST, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANNA START TALKING ABOUT EDITS OR WE WANNA LET THE, IS YOUR MICROPHONE ON? I'M SORRY.
CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YES, MA'AM.
UM, DO WE TALK ABOUT EDITS NOW OR DO YOU WANNA WAIT TILL WE HAVE THE SPEAKER CITIZEN TO BE, UM, I THINK LET'S WAIT TILL WE HAVE THE SPEAKER AND THEN WE CAN START HAVING THE FULL DISCUSSION AMONG THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS, IF THAT'S OKAY.
MADAM CHAIR? YES, GO AHEAD, MR. TAYLOR.
MICHAEL TAYLOR WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF SAN ANTONIO.
UM, ALSO A MEMBER OF THE REMOVING BARRIERS SUBCOMMITTEE.
AND, UM, THAT'S ONE OF THE, IT'S A SUBCOMMITTEE OF HOUSING COMMISSION THAT'S BEEN APPOINTED TO LOOK AT ALL OF THESE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ISSUES.
AND, UM, OBVIOUSLY I WAS HERE LESS OR TWO WEEKS AGO AT THE TABLE AND WE WERE TALKING ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
SO I'M GLAD TO SEE THAT THE DEFINITION IS COMING UP NOW.
I THINK IT'LL MAKE IT EASIER TO, TO TALK ABOUT THE AMENDMENTS RELATED TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
UM, I'LL JUST SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, I VERY MUCH SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT.
UM, IT ALIGNS WITH WHAT CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED AS PART OF THE SHIP.
UM, AND IT REALLY DEALS WITH SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE PAST WHERE SOME BAD ACTORS, UH, TAKE ADVANTAGE OF CALLING THEIR PRODUCT AFFORDABLE.
AND, AND MAYBE IT'S NOT, THIS IS A SERIOUS DEFINITION OF AFFORDABILITY.
IT REQUIRES THAT HOUSING BE INCOME RESTRICTED, AND AS IAN SAID, THAT 60% FOR RENTAL, 120% FOR HOME OWNERSHIP, UM, IT ALSO REQUIRES A HOUSING RATIO.
SO, UM, A RESIDENT OR HOMEOWNER CAN'T PAY MORE THAN 30%, 33% OF THEIR
[00:35:01]
INCOME ON HOUSING.AND THEN IT REQUIRES THE SUPPORTABILITY PERIOD, WHICH WE WERE DISCUSSING TWO WEEKS AGO.
AND THAT'LL VARY DEPENDING ON HOW MUCH PUBLIC FUNDING IS GOING INTO THIS AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT.
UM, BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING ABOUT THIS IS THAT THIS DEFINITION IS WHAT'S GOING TO ENSURE THAT THAT PRODUCTS THAT CLAIM TO BE AFFORDABLE ARE TRULY AFFORDABLE.
AND SO BASED ON THAT, THEY WARRANT, UM, SOME DIFFERENT TREATMENT IN TERMS OF SOME OF THE OTHER AMENDMENTS THAT WE'RE, WE'RE, THAT THE, UH, PTAC IS LOOKING AT.
AND ALL I HAVE, BUT I'M HERE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
I WILL SAY THAT, UM, SO THE, THE AMENDMENT THAT WAS PART OF THE PACKET WAS, UM, I, I THINK STAFF WAS ATTEMPTING TO, TO MAKE WHAT WAS ADOPTED BY COUNCIL FIT INTO THE FORMAT OF THE U D C, BUT I WOULD ACTUALLY SUPPORT JUST ADOPTING THE LANGUAGE THAT COUNCIL ADOPTED AS PART OF THE SHIP.
I THINK IT'S CLEANER AND, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S, THERE'S NO ROOM FOR, UH, FOR SOMEONE TO ARGUE THAT ONE DEFINITION IS DIFFERENT THAN THE OTHER.
SO I WOULD, I WOULD ACTUALLY SUPPORT USING THE VERSION THAT WAS SENT OUT ON THE FLYER, UM, THAT YOU ALL RECEIVED.
UM, STAFF HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? SORRY, NOT STAFF, UH, COMMITTEE.
WE HAVE A, UM, MOTION FOR APPROVAL FROM MS. WRIGHT.
IS THERE A SECOND? ROBERT HANLEY SECOND.
I KNOW MS. UM, MALDONADO HAD QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OR, YEAH, I HAD TWO MINOR EDITS.
I WANTED TO, UM, LOOK AT THE, WHEN YOU GO, UM, UNDERNEATH AFFORDABLE LOW INCOME, NUMBER ONE, NUMBER TWO, THERE'S A STANDALONE PARAGRAPH THAT SAYS AREA MEDIAN INCOME TO ADD THE ACRONYM A M I AFTER THE THAT LANGUAGE, AND ALSO DO IT IN THE SAME DUPLICATION UNDER DEEPLY AFFORDABLE.
AND THEN CONSIDER ADDING THE LANGUAGE, UM, WHERE IT SAYS AREA MEETING INCOME ADD THE A M I IN PARENTHESES AS DEFINED BY THE US HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT IS CALCULATED ANNUALLY FOR HOUSEHOLDS FOR THE SAME SIZE IN THE SAN ANTONIO NEW BRAUNFELS METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA.
IT'S TO REFERENCE THAT THIS IS A VALUE THAT DOESN'T REMAIN STAGNANT, THAT IT DOES CHANGE EVERY YEAR.
UM, IF YOU LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF THE PAST 10 YEARS, THERE WERE TWO YEARS WHERE IT ACTUALLY DECLINED.
AND SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO REFERENCE THAT AS YOU REFERENCE WHAT A M I IS AND THE IMPORTANCE OF IT, UM, AS WE MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE THE SHIP, THESE AMENDMENTS ARE SEEKING TO IMPLEMENT THE SHIP, UH, WHICH IS STRATEGIC HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN IN THE U D C.
AND SO, UM, I ASK THAT WE ADD THE A M I SO IT COMES UP IN THE SEARCH, UM, BECAUSE SOMEBODY MAY JUST ENTER A M I AND, AND THE DEFINITION WOULD NOT COME UP IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE ACRONYM WITH IT AND THEN NOTING THAT, UM, THAT IT IS CALCULATED ANNUALLY.
YEAH, STAFF WOULDN'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT.
I THINK THOSE ARE BOTH CLARIFYING AMENDMENTS.
MR. BROWN
SOMEWHERE UP THERE IT SAYS AREA MEDIUM GROSS INCOME SECOND A M I AND THEN SOMEWHERE ELSE IT JUST SAYS AREA MEDIUM INCOME.
ARE THEY THE SAME THING? SHOULD THEY SHOULD BOTH SAY AREA MEDIUM INCOME, SEE, JUST ABOVE ALSO WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT, OH, I'M SORRY.
UH, SO WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT GROSS INCOME, IT'S TALKING ABOUT WHAT THE HOUSEHOLD EARNS, AND THEN FOR A M I IT SHOULD JUST SAY AREA MEDIAN INCOME.
SO IS IT, I'M JUST TRYING TO FI FOLLOW WHERE YOU'RE AT.
I CAN'T SEE VERY WELL, BUT IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? THE ONLY OTHER ONE I HAVE IS UNDER DEEPLY AFFORDABLE ONE.
WE'VE ADDED THE 30, BUT THE 50 IS READ, BUT NOT STRUCK OUT.
JUST MAKING SURE THAT'S CLEAR THAT THAT'S A STRIKETHROUGH.
HE WOULD BE, I'M CHANNELING GEORGE'S TODAY.
HE'S SKIING AND WE'RE DOING THIS.
UM, MS. WRIGHT, ARE YOU OPEN TO THOSE AMENDMENTS AS SUGGESTED BY MS. MALDONADO? UH, CAN WE GET THAT SECOND AMENDMENT? IT WAS BY MR. HANLEY.
I, I'M AGREEABLE TO THE AMENDMENTS PRESENTED BY, UH, BIANCA.
YOU MEAN THE SECOND ONE WHERE I WAS MALDONADO THE SECOND ONE WHERE I ADDED IS CALCULATED ANNUALLY.
SO IT'D BE THE AREA MEETING INCOME, A M I AS DEFINED BY THE US HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT IS CALCULATED ANNUALLY.
THAT WOULD BE SEEN, CALCULATED ANNUALLY WOULD BE THE WORD THAT WOULD TWO WORDS THAT WOULD BE ADDED.
ADDED IN THAT AS AS CALCULATED ANNUALLY, RIGHT? OH, SORRY.
AS CALCULATED ANNUALLY INSTEAD OF IS, AND THEN CHANGE THE SAME SECTION IN THIS SECOND.
I WOULD ASSUME, UH, IAN, THERE'S NO CONCERNS WITH THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LANGUAGE? NO, I THINK THAT'S CLARIFYING.
IF YOU GO TO HUDS, IT UPDATES IT, BUT I GUESS JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT, THANK YOU.
IT'S CLEAR, YOU, YOU SCRATCH THE REFERENCE BECAUSE IT KEEPS CHANGING THE 24 C F R IT.
[00:40:02]
I'M SORRY.SAY WHAT? YOU SCRATCH THE REFERENCE.
YEAH, THE RED STRIKEOUT IS TO BE DELETED.
IT'S BECAUSE IT KEEPS CHANGING EVERY YEAR.
SO WE DON'T WANNA REFERENCE IT IN THE, IN THE AMENDMENT.
IT, IT JUST MOVED IT TO THE TOP OF THE SENTENCE.
SO THE AREA MEDIA INCOME IS DEFINED BY THE US HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, SO WE TOOK IT OUT FROM THE BACK.
I UNDERSTAND I'M TALKING ABOUT THE EXACT REFERENCE LOCATION IN THE HUT, THE SECTION OF THE CODE.
I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S PRETTY REDUNDANT.
I DON'T THINK IT NEEDS TO BE IN THERE.
UM, DOES IT KEEP CHANGING EVERY YEAR FROM THE HUD THAT'S WHY YOU REMOVE IT? UM, OR YOU LET EVERYBODY ELSE LOOK FOR IT IN THE WHOLE HUD AND I MEAN, I THINK WE COULD LEAVE IT IN THERE.
IT'S NOT, IT DOESN'T MATTER EITHER WAY, WHERE WE'D BE OKAY WITH LEAVING IT.
AND, AND THESE THEMSELVES, THEY CHANGE IT EVERY YEAR ANNUALLY, CORRECT? RIGHT.
I THINK WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO IS THAT WASN'T REFERENCED IN THE ORIGINAL DEFINITION THAT COUNCIL APPROVED, SO WE DIDN'T PUT IT IN THERE.
IF IT'S IN THERE, IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL.
IF THEY DO CHANGE IT IN THE FUTURE, THEN THAT MIGHT MEAN WE NEED TO COME BACK AND AMEND IT.
SO IT'S JUST ONE MORE THING THAT WE MAY NEED TO AMEND AT A FUTURE TIME.
SO I WOULD SUPPORT JUST LEAVING IT, I THINK IT'S PRETTY CLEAR.
AND THE WAY THAT WE'RE GONNA IMPLEMENT IT, WE'LL BE CHECKING.
IF THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO QUESTIONS, UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, PLEASE SAY AYE.
UM, ITEM NUMBER THREE, AMENDMENT 15 DASH TWO.
I BELIEVE WE HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM C P S ENERGY PRESENT.
MY NAME IS SCOTT EY, I'M WITH
CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? ALL RIGHT.
I'M THE MANAGER OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AT C P S ENERGY.
UH, WE ARE SPONSORING THIS CHANGE.
THE, REALLY THE ONLY CHANGE IS TO SECTION 35 DASH FOUR, UH, FOUR 30, AND THAT'S TO ADD THE WORDS ELECTRICAL SUBSTATIONS AND TO, UH, SECTION C NOTE 11.
SO, UH, AT WE'VE ALWAYS, UH, RUN UNDER THIS, UH, EXCEPTIONS.
AND, UH, NOW IT'S JUST TO CLARIFY, IT, THERE'S ALWAYS BEEN, WE GET, AS SOON AS WE SUBMIT A PERMIT, WE GET A PUSH BACK, HEY, YOU GOTTA DO THIS AND DO THAT.
SO, NO, WE WE'RE RUNNING UNDER THIS EXCEPTION.
AND, UH, SO WE'D JUST LIKE TO CLARIFY IT, CLARIFY THAT AT THIS MOMENT.
SO, ANY QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS? CAN I, OH, I CAN'T SEE YOU.
UM, DEBBIE REED, JUST QUESTIONING ON THE ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION, THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE LIKE THE C P S.
THIS IS SOME TYPE OF FACILITY ON A DEVELOPMENT SITE.
NO, THIS IS A C P S OWNED, UH, CONSTRUCTED AND MAINTAINED.
SO THERE, UH, ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION.
SO THEIR SUBSTATIONS WOULD NO LONGER REQUIRE BEING PLATTED.
DO I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY? UH, THEY HAVE NEVER REQUIRED BEING PLATTED.
IF I CAN ADD JUST A LITTLE BIT TO THAT AS, UM, SCOTT AND I WERE DISCUSSING THIS, UM, AM I ALLOWED TO, TO DO THIS EVEN THOUGH I'M THE CHAIR? YES.
SO TYPICALLY WHEN C P S ENERGY, UM, IS CONSTRUCTING A SUBSTATION, THEY COME IN AND, UM, STAFF WILL TELL THEM, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO GET A PLA AND THEY HAVE TO GO BACK AND SAY, NO, WE CURRENTLY FALL UNDER UTILITY EQUIPMENT HUTS AND A UTILITY EQUIPMENT HUTT, UM, IS NOT SPECIFIC ENOUGH.
SO THEY WANTED TO ADD ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION TO THIS, UH, SECTION OF THE CODE.
SO THAT WAY THERE'S, UH, IT'S VERY CLEAR WHEN THEY DO COME FORWARD WITH A, TO, TO BUILD A SUBSTATION.
UM, SO IT IS JUST ADDING CLARIFICATION.
SECOND MOTION FROM MR. BROWN'S.
UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY, AYE.
OH, DID OUR ATTORNEY HAVE A COMMENT?
OH, BRAD, ARE WE MADE ON DEFINITION? DON'T YOU DO THAT BEFORE WE HAD THE MEETING? YEAH, LET'S WING IT AND KEEP GOING.
I'M GOOD WITH, YEAH, WE DON'T HAVE A DEFINITION.
IT'S PROBABLY A, IT'S NOT A BUILDING, IT'S
[00:45:02]
INHABITABLE STRUCTURE.UM, AND THAT'S TYPICALLY WHAT WE SEES REGULATIONS.
WHY IS IT HERE? NO, NOT THAT I KNOW OF.
I, BECAUSE IT'S NOT, IT'S, IT VARIES.
WE DON'T HAVE A DEFINITION OF UTILITY.
I BET WE DIDN'T HAVE A DEFINITION OF WHAT WE STUCK THEM UNDER IN THE FIRST PLACE.
WHATEVER A UTILITY EQUIPMENT HUTT IS BE NO, BECAUSE THIS IS RELATED TO PLAID EXCEPTIONS, THAT, THAT GOES THROUGH A ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW.
AND I THINK THAT IF WE HAD CONCERNS, WE WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE A RED FLAG.
ALRIGHT, LET'S, WHAT I THINK THAT I'M GOOD WITH WINGING IT ON Y'ALL'S JUDGMENT.
UM, I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT WE HAVE OTHER SECTIONS OF THE U D C THAT DO POINT OUT ELECTRICAL SUBSTATIONS ALREADY.
THIS WOULD NOT BE THE FIRST SECTION THAT DOES THANK YOU, RACHEL.
AND IF THEY ADDED A BUILDING TO A SUBSTATION, THEY'RE PLATTING IT.
IN EITHER PROCESS, STAFF IS GONNA REVIEW IT, AND IF THERE IS A DISCREPANCY, WE WILL WORK DIRECTLY WITH C P S TO RESOLVE THOSE ISSUES.
AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND MY COLLEAGUE HAS JUST FOUND THAT BY, WHO IS IT? THE OSHA.
OSHA HAS A DEFINITION AND IT IS NOT THE BUILDING, BUT IF IT'S, IF NO ONE HAS A CLUE WHAT IT IS AND WE'RE ALL JUST WINGING IT TODAY, THAT'S A PROBLEM.
THEN IN FIVE YEARS, 10 YEARS WHEN SOMEBODY WANTS TO BUILD THE NEW C P S HEADQUARTERS, THAT'S A SUBSTATION OR, BUT IT IS DEFINED BY OSHA.
MOVING ON TO, UH, NUMBER FOUR FIVE DASH 33, WE VOTED AND THEN THE ATTORNEYS HAD THE COMMENTS AFTERWARDS.
SO I, I THINK THE ONLY THING THAT WE NEED FOR THE RECORD WAS WHETHER OR NOT THERE WERE ANY NAYS.
ARE THERE ANY OPPOSED? OKAY, THANK YOU.
NOW MOVING ON TO NUMBER FOUR FIVE DASH 33.
CAT DOESN'T LIKE CONCESSION SCENES.
SO, UH, ESSENTIALLY, UH, MANY YEARS AGO WE CREATED, UH, A NUMBER OF PLATT EXCEPTIONS.
SO THERE ARE 17 DIFFERENT CRITERIA IN THE CODE, UH, THAT IF YOU MEET THOSE CRITERIA, YOU CAN GET OUTTA THE PLATT PROCESS.
UM, THEY'RE, THEY'RE PRETTY LIMITED IN SCOPE.
UM, WHEN THIS ONE WAS INITIALLY ADDED, UH, IT INCLUDED, UH, CONCESSION FACILITIES.
AND WE'VE HAD A NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS, UH, OVER THE YEARS THAT HAVE AN UN PLATTED PARK, UH, YOU KNOW, A, A SOCCER FIELD, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
AND THEY'RE TRYING TO ADD A LITTLE STAND WHERE THEY CAN SELL A BAG OF CHIPS AND SOME LEMONADE.
AND WE DON'T THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO PUT THEM THROUGH A 2020 $5,000 PLATT PROCESS TO ENABLE, UH, THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CONCESSION STAND.
UH, SO WE ARE PROPOSING TO REMOVE THE LANGUAGE, UH, EFFECTIVELY ALLOWING CUSTOMERS TO PROCEED WITH A $250 PLATT EXCEPTION APPLICATION RATHER THAN GOING THROUGH A POTENTIALLY TWO YEAR LONG PLAT PROCESS.
ANY, UM, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? MOVE FOR APPROVAL.
MR. TEALS? I'VE, SO LET'S SAY I'VE GOT A LOT THAT I'M USING AS A FOOD TRUCK LOT, AND THEN I WANT TO PUT A STATIC STRUCTURE ON THAT.
DOES, WOULD THIS APPLY UTILITY? SO IT, I'M SORRY, REPEAT THE QUESTION.
SO LET'S SAY I HAVE A VACANT LOT.
WE, WE COULD CALL IT A, A SOCCER PARK, BUT ON WEEKENDS WE'VE BEEN HAVING, UH, FOOD TRUCKS THERE EVERY WEEKEND.
NOW WE WANT TO HAVE A STATIC BUILDING THERE.
THIS COULD MEET THAT EXCEPTION.
SO IF THE BUILDING WAS GOING TO BE USED MERELY FOR CONCESSION FACILITIES, YES.
BUT IF YOU WERE GOING TO PROVIDE, YOU KNOW, A STRUCTURE WITH PUBLIC RESTROOMS AND PLUMBING AND UTILITY IMPROVE, THAT WOULD REQUIRE A PLAT.
SO IS IT A PUBLIC PARK OR IS IT A GOLF COURSE? IS IT OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE GOVERNMENT? OR IS THIS PRIVATE PROPERTY? IT'S A SOCCER FIELD.
IS IT PRIVATE PROPERTY? PRIVATE OR PUBLIC? HERE, THIS HAS TO DO WITH PUBLIC PROPERTY OWNED BY GOVERNMENT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? DO WE HAVE A MOTION MOVE FOR APPROVAL? SECOND.
SECOND WAS FROM MS. MALDONADO.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.
ITEM NUMBER FIVES SIX DASH FOUR.
[00:50:08]
DO WE HAVE ANYONE FROM THE FOOD POLICY COUNCIL HERE TO PRESENT THIS AMENDMENT? LOOKS LIKE A YOU.ALRIGHT, I'M GONNA DO MY BEST HERE.
SO THE FIRST ITEM, UH, RELATED TO THE, UH, 35,430 WOULD ADD AN 18TH PLATT EXCEPTION, UH, THAT IF THAT URBAN FARM MET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA, THEY WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO GO THROUGH THAT PLATT PROCESS.
UH, THE INDIVIDUAL EXCEPTIONS ARE THAT THE DIVISION OF LAND DOES NOT CREATE A LOT SMALLER THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET.
UM, WHERE THE SUBDIVISION PARCEL TO BE DEVELOPED UNDER THIS, UH, SUBSECTION IS PREEXISTING THAT THERE ARE NO HABITABLE STRUCTURES ON SITE.
UH, SPECIFICALLY THAT DOES NOT, UH, INCLUDE A UTILITY SHED.
THAT WAS WHERE WE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION WITH THIS GROUP.
UH, THEY FELT IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO BE ABLE TO AT LEAST HAVE A SHED ON THE FARM WHERE THEY COULD PUT THE RAKES, UH, YOU KNOW, THE WHATEVER OTHER MATERIAL WAS NEEDED.
UH, WE ADDITIONALLY HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM ABOUT, UH, PROVIDING A COMMODITIES LIST.
YOU KNOW, IF THEY'RE GONNA BE STORING FERTILIZERS INSIDE THAT SHED, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WOULD NEED TO KNOW WHAT IS IN IT IF THERE WERE EVER A FIRE.
UM, AND THAT THERE ARE NO, AGAIN, SIMILAR TO YOUR POINT SIR, THERE'S NO, UH, PUBLIC PERMANENT TOILETS, YOU KNOW, UH, UTILITY IMPACT, UH, ON THE PROPERTY.
UH, PROVIDED THEY WERE ABLE TO MEET THOSE CONDITIONS, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO EXEMPT THEMSELVES FROM THAT PLATT PROCESS.
ANY, UH, QUESTIONS? THIS IS ROBERT HANLEY.
UH, LOGAN, LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION, UH, BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THE, THE PART THAT SAYS HABIT, YOU KNOW, NO HABITABLE STRUCTURES DOES NOT INCLUDE, INCLUDE A UTILITY SHED, BUT IS THERE A LITTLE BIT OF A WIGGLE ROOM THERE ON WHETHER THAT TOOL SHED IS A HUNDRED SQUARE FEET OR A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET? EITHER ONE IS A PERMITTED UNDER THE CURRENT LANGUAGE.
SO WE, WE DID NOT COME UP FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS PLATT EXCEPTION WITH DEFINING HOW LARGE THE MAX THAT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS ALLOWED TO BE PROVIDED THAT IT WAS NOT HABITABLE.
DOESN'T, THE OTHER EXCEPTIONS ALREADY KIND OF DEFINE HABITABLE.
I'M SORRY, DOESN'T SOME OF THE OTHER EXCEPTION ALREADY DEFINE HABITABLE STRUCTURE? THERE ARE, I BELIEVE ONE OR TWO OTHER PLAID EXCEPTIONS THAT, THAT ALLOW PLAID EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED THERE ARE NO HABITABLE USES.
SO ONE OF THE ONES THAT WE SEE PRETTY FREQUENTLY GUARD SHUT IS, UM, SOMEONE MAY OWN A LOT LARGE LOT, THEY WANT TO PUT SECURITY LIGHTING ON IT.
SO WE WILL ALLOW YOU TO, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT GONNA MAKE YOU GO THROUGH A PLAT PROCESS TO GET A C P S CONNECTION TO PROVIDE SECURITY LIGHTING ON A VACANT LOT.
BUT THERE'S NOWHERE IN THOSE EXCEPTIONS THAT HABITABLE BA HABITABLE BASICALLY IS UTILITY SERVICE VERSUS SIZE OF THE BUILDING.
IS THAT CORRECT? THERE'S NOWHERE IN THERE THAT GIVES HABITABLE DEFINED BY SQUARE FOOTAGE.
LET ME DOUBLE CHECK THAT SECTION.
SO PLAN EXCEPTION NUMBER THREE STATES THAT NO UTILITY SERVICES SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE PARCEL FOR THOSE UNINHABITABLE USES.
SO WE'RE DEFINING HABITABLE OR UNINHABITABLE BY UTILITY SERVICE TO IT, MAINLY WATER AND SEWER RATHER THAN SIZE OF A BUILDING.
AND, AND I, THE CONCERN FROM THE APPLICANT WAS, UH, BACK IN, UH, 2015 WHEN WE FIRST STARTED PUTTING URBAN FARM RELATED USES IN THE U D C, UM, THEIR ATTEMPTS AT CREATING URBAN FARMS SINCE 2015 HAVE BEEN MIRED IN DEVELOPMENT RELATED COSTS THAT DON'T MAKE URBAN FARMS VERY FEASIBLE.
UM, AND WHEN YOU HAVE TO START OFF AN URBAN FARM WITH A 15 OR $20,000 PLAT, IT MAKES IT ALMOST
[00:55:01]
UNUSABLE, UH, TO, TO GO DOWN THAT PATH.SO WHEN WE MET WITH THEM, WE WERE ABLE TO COME UP WITH, UH, A SERIES OF CONDITIONS THAT, AGAIN, PROVIDED YOU CAN MEET THOSE, WE'D BE COMFORTABLE ISSUING A PLATT EXCEPTION.
YOU KNOW, THESE ARE NOT USES THAT ARE DRAWING A SUBSTANTIAL CROWD.
UH, THEY DON'T HAVE PARKING LOTS.
UH, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO UTILITIES TO THE SITE.
UH, SO WE WERE COMFORTABLE PROCEEDING WITH, UH, THE PLATT EXCEPTION.
SO, MR. HANLEY, ARE YOU, ARE YOU CONCERNED WITH THE FACT THAT THAT'S NOT DEFINED OR ARE YOU OKAY WITH IT AS IT IS? YEAH, I'M, I'M OKAY.
I ALWAYS HATE, UH, CREATING A NEW RULE OR ORDINANCE OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT CREATES ADDITIONAL PROBLEMS. AND WHEN I LOOKED AT THIS PARTICULAR PROVISION IS THAT IT DOESN'T DEFINE THE SIZE OF THE UTILITY SHED.
AND I'M WONDERING IF WHAT MR. UH, LOGAN IS SAYING IS, UH, ADDRESSING A CONCERN FOR AN INDIVIDUAL.
I ALSO HATE MAKING, UH, EXCEPTIONS MAKE OF THE RULES FOR THE EXCEPTION.
SO IF IT'S NOT CLEARLY THOUGHT OUT, DO WE WANT TO GO PROCEED ON THIS? BUT IF THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT THE CITY UNDER SOME OTHER, UH, VEHICLE OR PROCESS CAN ADDRESS THIS, WHERE IT DOESN'T BECOME A PROBLEM AND THEN WE COME BACK FIVE YEARS FROM NOW AND SAY, HEY, WE NEED TO PUT A SIZE LIMIT ON THAT, THAT UTILITY.
SHE, THAT'S, THAT WAS MY POINT.
I'M, I'M LOOKING AT IS IT CLEAR AND WHAT IS THE WIGGLE ROOM? MANA, I, SO I KNOW THAT SO AREN'T, UH, FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, ISN'T THERE PERMIT REQUIRED ONCE IT GETS PAST A CERTAIN SQUARE FOOTAGE? AND SO, SO I THINK IT'S, SO I THINK IT'S 300, YOU KNOW, OR THEREABOUTS.
AND SO, SO THE QUESTION WOULD BE, UM, WOULD THE CITY BE ABLE TO BE ENGAGED IN, IF IT WAS GONNA BE LARGER THAN THAT TO KIND OF, YOU KNOW, WE'LL SAY MANAGE THAT FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE.
PHILLIP, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
THIS IS NOT AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, THIS IS PART OF AN URBAN FARM OR GREENHOUSE.
BUT I THINK FOR, FOR A RESIDENT TO PUT A SHED IN THEIR BACKYARD, UM, YEAH, I UNDERSTAND THE 300 SHED, BUT THAT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS PARTICULAR CASE OF THE LANGUAGE.
I THINK THAT WE HAVE A NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES SUGGESTING ADDING THAT LANGUAGE.
MAYBE SO, BUT, OR, OR SOMETHING ALONG THAT LINE.
'CAUSE I, 'CAUSE I GUESS I, I WAS ASSUMING THAT IT WAS THE SAME THING AS A SEX RE STRUCTURE.
UM, SO, SO MAYBE I MISSED THAT.
SO I, I, I DO WANT TO CHIME IN AND, AND STATE THAT I THINK THAT STAFF HAS MULTIPLE OPPORTUNITIES, UH, TO CATCH SOMETHING THAT IS NOT REALLY ALIGNED WITH THE SPIRIT OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO PROVIDE HERE.
UH, CERTAINLY TO YOUR POINT, IF YOU'RE COMING IN WITH A BUILDING PERMIT FOR A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT STRUCTURE, UH, THAT IS NOT A SHED FOR AN URBAN FARM.
UM, WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, CERTIFICATES OF DETERMINATION ARE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED, UH, REVIEWED AND APPROVED.
SO IF WE FELT THAT A CONDITION WAS NOT MET OR DOES NOT MEET THE INTENT, WE COULD DENY IT, THEY COULD APPEAL THAT DENIAL, BUT IT WOULD GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO MAKE A DECISION.
SO I THINK THAT WE HAVE A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY TO, UH, INDIVIDUALLY REVIEW THESE REQUESTS AND ENSURE THAT THEY'RE CONSISTENT WITH THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'VE HAD.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. BROWN AND A SECOND BY MS. MALDONADO.
UM, IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
ITEM NUMBER, I THINK WE MAY BE READY TO MOVE BACK, UH, TO THE DEFINITIONS ON THAT FIRST AMENDMENT.
IF, UH, IF YOU'RE READY, UH, LAUREN RILEY, THOSE WERE EMAILED TO YOU, IF YOU CAN PULL 'EM UP.
I THINK THE, WHERE WE LEFT OFF LAST WAS THE PREAMBLE.
UH, SO STAFF HAS PUT TOGETHER SOME RECOMMENDATION, UH, RECOMMENDED LANGUAGE, UM, IN THE PREAMBLE AREA.
AND WE CAN ALSO BRING UP THE CODE LANGUAGE AND THE DEFINITIONS AS WELL TO REMIND EVERYONE WHERE WE'RE AT.
SO, SO AGAIN, I KNOW WE'VE BEEN USING THE TERMINOLOGY PREAMBLE.
THE WAY IT'S ACTUALLY WRITTEN IN THE CODE IS A STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.
SO IF THE, THE TAC TODAY WERE TO FIND THIS APPROPRIATE, THIS LANGUAGE, AGAIN, IT'S COMMENTARY, ESSENTIALLY.
IT'S NOT DIRECTLY ENFORCEABLE, UH, BUT WE COULD PASTE THAT AT THE TOP OF THE SECTION.
UH, IT'S MEANT TO KIND OF SUMMARIZE WHAT YOU'RE ABOUT TO READ, WHY WE HAVE IT.
UH, AND THEN A LITTLE ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY.
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO STATE IT'S BETTER THAN HAVING NOTHING, UM, IN THERE BECAUSE I KNOW THAT AS THE STATE LEDGE HAS, YOU KNOW, REMOVED THE AUTHORITY FOR US TO PUT SPECIFICS, THIS GIVES THE GENERAL INTENT BEHIND IT BECAUSE CONCERNS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP ABOUT THE COMMERCIAL INSTALLATION AND THE VIEW OF THE FRONT FACADES OF THESE BUILDINGS AND UNDERSTANDING GENERALLY WHERE YOU WOULD ENTER, WHERE YOU WOULD EXIT AND, AND THEY ARE CONFUSING.
SO, UM, I THANK Y'ALL FOR THIS LANGUAGE.
[01:00:01]
APPROVAL AS AMENDED AND SUBMITTED OR AS AMENDED.ACTUALLY, ROBERT LEY A SECOND.
SO I, I I HAVE A QUESTION FOR CLARIFICATION.
SO WE'RE ADDING THAT INTO THE STATEMENT.
ARE WE THEN LEAVING TWO A AS IS THAT, THAT WAS GONNA BE MY OTHER QUESTION.
DO WE NEED TO REMOVE TWO A? 'CAUSE IT'S SAYING EFFECTIVELY THE SAME THING AND IT'S ACTUALLY, IT'S ACTUALLY SUBSECTION C.
SO TWO C SHOWN AS A, WE ARE SHOWN AS A, WE ARE APPROVING ALL.
UM, WELL, I GUESS THE YELLOW HIGHLIGHTED SECTION IS NOT BEING CONSIDERED, BUT WE, IT WOULD BE THE RED STRICKEN TEXT, OR ARE WE STRIKING THE WHOLE THING? YOU, YOU CAN STRIKE THE WHOLE THING AS IF THE ONLY THING ELSE LEFT THERE IS A REFERENCE TO ANOTHER SECTION THAT ALREADY EXISTS.
IT'S NOT REALLY DOING ANYTHING FOR YOU.
STRIKING TO SEE SHOWN AS A, UM, ADDING THE, UH, DEFINITIONS THAT STAFF WORKED ON WITH C P S ENERGY AND ALL THE OTHER AMENDMENTS LISTED IN HERE.
DO WE, IS IT STILL, UM, I'M SORRY, IT WAS SECOND OR FIRST BY MS. MALDONADO.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
IF WE MOVE, IF WE REMOVE C, WE NEED TO RENUMBER D TO C, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
YEAH, WE, WE SHOULD GO WITHOUT SAYING.
YEAH, WE'LL, WE'LL MAKE THOSE CHANGES FOR SURE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
IS THAT CORRECT? ITEM SIX DASH FIVE, LIKE THE AMENDMENT WE JUST DISCUSSED.
THIS IS ADDING SOME LANGUAGE, UH, INTO THE, UH, KIND OF THE STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AT THE TOP OF THIS SECTION.
UH, SPECIFICALLY CALLING OUT, UH, THE, UH, THE, THE INCLUSION OF COMMUNITY GARDENS AND URBAN FARMS. UH, AGAIN, THIS IS NOT ENFORCEABLE LANGUAGE, THIS IS STATEMENT OF PURPOSE FOR THE SECTION THAT FOLLOWS ONLY ANY QUESTIONS, MOVE FOR APPROVAL.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
UM, ITEM NUMBER SEVEN 14 DASH NINE.
DO WE HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE GREATER EDWARDS AQUIFER? LAWRENCE
THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK TODAY ON THIS, UM, AMENDMENT THAT'S BEING PROPOSED BY THE GREATER EDWARDS AQUIFER ALLIANCE.
AND I JUST WANTED TO GIVE A LITTLE PREFACE TO THIS, IS THAT OUR INITIAL GOAL WAS LOOKING INTO THE PARK DEDICATION PROVISIONS, WAS TO INCREASE ROBUSTNESS OF PARKS, PROVIDING THE BACKBONE OF THE CITY'S GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FOR MANAGING STORMWATER.
AND AGAIN, IN, UM, AUGUST OF 2020, I DID MEET WITH THE PARK STAFF AND THEY FELT THAT THEY COULD PROBABLY SUPPORT THESE PROVISIONS.
AND I WILL SAY THAT ONCE WE WENT OUT INTO THE COMMUNITY AND GAVE OUR PRESENTATIONS, WENT OVER THIS WITH OUR MEMBER GROUPS, THERE WAS A SOMEWHAT, PEOPLE JUST DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT THE SWIMMING POOLS AND TENNIS COURTS AND CLUBHOUSES FOR THE MULTI-FAMILY COMPLEXES WERE BEING USED TO MEET THAT DEDICATION.
SO WE'VE BEEN ASKED TO PUT FORTH OF INCLUDING NOT ONLY PERVIOUS AREA, BUT ALSO, UM, SPACE THAT'S OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
AND THIS IS ACTUALLY, THERE'S A PRESIDENT SET ACROSS THE STATE, UM, FOR ACTUALLY LOOKING AT A PERCENT OF YOUR PARKLAND BEING PERVIOUS AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
AND THIS INCLUDES HOUSTON, DALLAS, FORT WORTH.
AND I THINK THAT BY DOING SO, BY LOOKING AT THIS, THAT THIS WILL PUT CITY OF SAN ANTONIO IN A BETTER POSITION OF PUBLIC LAND AND ACCESS THAT'S EQUITABLE FOR THE COMMUNITY.
AND MAYBE EVENTUALLY WE'LL EVEN BE CORPUS CHRISTI, I'M HOPING IN THE RANKINGS.
SO LOOKING AT THESE PER UM, PROVISIONS,
[01:05:01]
WE FEEL THAT WE'VE DONE SO IN AN AFFORDABLE MANNER.AND ONE OF THE GOALS IS TO LOOK AT PROVIDING MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR DEVELOPMENT TO BE ABLE TO STACK UTILITIES AND REQUIREMENTS IN SOME OF THE GREEN SPACE THAT COULD BE COUNTED FOR PART DEDICATION.
IS THAT THE FIRST ONE? SO AGAIN, WE'RE LOOKING AT BEING ABLE TO, UM, ADD THE TERMINOLOGY FOR OPEN SPACE SO THAT THERE'S A CONCEPT THAT THIS IS NOT A STRUCTURE OR AN AMENITY, AND ALSO THE REFERENCE TO ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY FOR OUR PARKS AND WHAT, UM, HOW MUCH THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL PORTION OF A PARK PROVIDES FOR THE CITY.
AND A, THE APPLICABILITY IS OUR REDUCE OR DO NOT APPLY TO.
AND THE BIG ONE HERE IS NUMBER B IS ABLE TO REDUCE REQUIREMENTS BY 50%.
IF THE PARKLAND PROVIDES CONNECTIVITY TO EXISTING OR PROPOSED PARKLAND OR TRAILS.
AND UNDER B ONE B, IT IS ENCOURAGED THAT RIGHTS OF WAY BE USED AS THE PUBLIC ACCESSIBLE PORTION AND WITH AN ADDITIONAL 30 FOOT WIDTH MAY BE USED TO MEET OTHER REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 35 12 STREET SCAPE PLANTING STANDARDS AND 13.722 ONSITE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FEATURES WHEN DESIGNED AS GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE OR WITH NATURE-BASED STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ACCESS A MINIMUM OF 60% OF THE REQUIRED DEDICATED PARKLAND WOULD BE ACCESSIBLE TO THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY.
NUMBER FOUR, THE FAIR MARKET VALUE SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 50,000 AND SHALL NOT EXCEED 150,000 PER ACRE AND GIVING, UH, CREDIT UNLESS THE PROPERTY CONNECTS TO AN OR GIVING ADDITIONAL CREDIT FOR PROPERTIES THAT ARE CONNECTED TO EXISTING OR PROPOSED TRAIL SYSTEMS FOR AN INCREASE OF 1.25 CREDIT
UM, ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE? WHO GETS THE CREDIT? THE CREDIT'S MENTIONED, WHO'S GETTING THAT CREDIT? THE CRED THE CREDIT IS YES.
IS GIVEN TO THE DEVELOPER WHO, UM, THE DEVELOPER'S PROPERTY IN THAT WAY.
SO IT'S, YOU ARE ENCOURAGING THE DEVELOPERS TO INCREASE THE SPACE OF THE, IT ENCOURAGES CONNECTIVITY AND GIVING CREDIT FOR THAT? YES.
DEBBIE, HOW LONG DO YOU ADDRESS THE ISSUES OF PRIVATE, UH, HOAS WHO HAVE TO PAY FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT? HOW ARE, HOW, WHERE IS THE EQUITY REQUIRING PUBLIC DEDICATION, PRIVATELY OWNED AND MAINTAIN FACILITY? THAT'S WHAT I'M READING, UNLESS I'M MISUNDERSTANDING.
LET ME MAKE SURE I'M CLARIFYING CORRECTLY.
SO A PRIVATE PARK WITHIN AN H O A, IS THAT CORRECT? SO THAT SOME PORTION WOULD BE, UM, AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC ACCESS, OR IT COULD BE USED AS THE RIGHT OF WAY OR THE ADDITIONAL TRAILS IN THE PUBLIC, UM, ACCESS AREA.
THE PUBLIC ACCESS IS PAID FOR BY PUBLIC DOLLARS, AND H O A PARKS ARE PAID FOR, LIKE PRIVATE HOMEOWNER.
THAT WOULD BE DI IS TO ME A A REAL ISSUE OF EQUITY ON THIS.
I GET WHAT YOU'RE TRYING, I APPRECIATE INCREASING PARK SPACE AND ALL OF THAT, BUT I THINK THAT THERE'S REAL SERIOUS LEGAL ISSUES MM-HMM.
AND, BUT THAT'S NOT EVEN CONSISTENT WITH EVIDENCE TYPICALLY.
[01:10:01]
YES.UM, IT WAS NOT VISUALIZED THAT THE PUBLIC WOULD BE INSIDE THE H O A, THAT THEY WOULD MAINTAIN A BUDDING PROPERTY OR THAT IT WOULD BE ADDITIONAL, UM, DEDICATION THAT IS UNDER THE PROVISION FOR NON-A BUDDING PROPERTY.
SO A RIGHT OF WAY FOR, UM, A DEVELOPMENT, WHETHER IT'S MULTI-FAMILY OR RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION WOULD HAVE, UM, COLLECTOR STREETS LEADING INTO THEIR SUBDIVISION.
AND THOSE AREAS COULD BE ALSO, UM, UTILIZED.
BUT AGAIN, AND OFTENTIMES THOSE STREETS ARE MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSMENTS ON THE OWNERS.
SO, UM, I JUST, I THINK WE'VE GOT A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH THE, THE WAY THIS IS STRUCTURED.
LEGAL PROBLEMS, BECAUSE WE HAVE COVENANTS ON HOAS ARE CREATED WITH THE COVENANTS.
THEY HAVE TO BE, AND THIS IS GONNA, THIS IS GONNA VIOLATE EVERY COVENANT I KNOW OF WHERE THERE'S, UNLESS IT'S IN THE DOCUMENTS THAT THEY HAVE AGREED TO DEDICATE IT FOR PUBLIC USE, I WOULD THINK THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE IT WITH, WITH SOME OF THE LEGAL CONCERNS.
COULD SUSAN OR JOSEPH, COULD Y'ALL WEIGH IN ON, ON THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF REQUIRING PUBLIC ACCESS TO PRIVATE DEDICATED LAND? I SEE IT AS PROBLEMATIC.
I ALSO SEE, UM, WHO'S GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING IT.
UH, IF YOU, RIGHT, IS IT THE H O A, IS IT THE CITY? THE CITY'S NOT ASKING FOR THIS.
IT'S NOT DEDICATED TO THE CITY, AND THERE WILL BE A CONSTANT, UH, PUSHBACK EACH WAY.
THE CITY'S NOT GONNA BE RECEPTIVE TO TAKING ON THE MAINTENANCE AND THE H O A IS GONNA SAY IT'S THE PUBLIC, IT'S NOT OURS ANYMORE.
IT'S, IT'S, THOSE ISSUES NEED TO BE CLARIFIED FOR SURE.
I'D LIKE TO ALSO POINT OUT THAT YOU CAN HAVE A, A, A COMMUNITY POOL, SOCCER FIELDS, WHATEVER YOU WANNA PUT IN, IN AN AREA THAT DOES NOT HAVE PRIVATE STREETS, BUT YOU STILL HAVE THE FACT THAT IT SHOULD ONLY BE USED BY THE HOMEOWNERS THAT LIVE IN THAT AS IN THAT ASSOCIATION.
AND AN EXAMPLE WOULD BE, UM, IF, UH, WELL FROM A, FROM A TAX STANDPOINT, FOR EXAMPLE, UH, THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE BOUGHT IN A COMMUNITY THAT HAVE THOSE AMENITIES HAVE PAID MORE FOR THEIR HOME BECAUSE OF THE COST OF THOSE AMENITIES, AND THEREFORE THEIR TAX BILLS ARE HIGHER AND, AND THEIR TAXES THAT ARE GOING TO THE CITY, THE COUNTY OR WHATEVER, THEN BECOMES A SUBSIDY, UH, TO PEOPLE THAT HAVE NOT PAID ANY MONEY AT ALL AND HAVE NO OWNERSHIP IN THAT PROPERTY.
THE H O A, YOU HAVE OWNERSHIP THROUGH THE H O A AND YOU PAY MONTHLY DUES FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND, AND FOR, UH, REPAIRS AND FOR ONGOING IMPROVEMENTS.
AND SO TO HAVE THAT SITUATION CHANGED TO WHERE SOMEONE FROM ACROSS TOWN, UH, COULD JUST COME OVER IF THEY LIKE THEIR AMENITY CENTER BETTER AND USE IT, MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL.
AND IT'S, IT'S, I THINK IT'S BAD FOR THE COMMUNITY THAT DOES THOSE KINDS OF IMPROVEMENTS.
SO QUESTION I HAVE IS THAT YOU KINDA MENTIONED CORPUS CHRISTI AS, UH, SOMEBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO DO BETTER THEN.
AND SO I GUESS HAVE THEY ADDRESSED THIS, THIS SAME QUESTION WITH REGARDS TO MANAGING, WITH REGARDS TO HOAS AND BEING, UH, UH, I GUESS CO-MINGLED WITH THAT? YES.
THE, THESE, UM, ISSUES HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED IN OTHER, UM, CITIES.
AND IN ALL HONESTY, I HAVE NOT REALLY DELVED INTO HOW THEY ADDRESSED THEM.
AND ONE OF THE WAYS THAT EL PASO ADDRESSED THAT ISSUE WAS IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO A PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT OR PARK LAND IN YOUR DEVELOPMENT, THEN YOU WOULD DOUBLE YOUR PARK DEDICATION AMOUNT.
SO THERE'S DIFFERENT WAYS THAT IT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED.
SO I INVITE THIS, UM, THIS GROUP TO OFFER SUGGESTIONS.
WELL, AGAIN, IN, IN A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE HOMES MORE AFFORDABLE AND, UM, IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE, I GUESS YOU'D SAY, FOR THE CITIZENS OF SAN ANTONIO, WE HAVE A SITUATION WHERE NEW COMMUNITIES WILL BE PROVIDING A PARKLAND FOR EVERYBODY THAT'S MAYBE BEEN HERE FOR 20 YEARS THAT WANTS TO USE THEIR, THEIR FACILITIES.
AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S APPROPRIATE FOR, FOR THE FOLKS THAT HAVE COME AND PAID ADDITIONAL MONEY FOR THAT.
I WAS GONNA ASK IF YOU COULD COME UP, I KNEW YOU WERE HERE SOMEWHERE.
[01:15:01]
HI.UM, IF YOU CAN KIND OF EXPLAIN WHAT THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS ARE, BECAUSE I THINK ONE OF THINGS, THERE'S A LOT OF STUFF IN HERE.
I LIKE WHERE DEBBIE'S HEADED, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS IT, BECAUSE ONE OF THE PROBLEMS IS THE DEDICATION REALLY ISN'T A LARGE DEDICATION, SO WE'RE GONNA END UP WITH ONE ACRE THAT'S PUBLIC AND THREE ACRES THAT'S PRIVATE.
AND I DON'T THINK THE CITY HAS THE ABILITY TO BE TAKING ALL THOSE SMALL PIECES.
SO I THINK I WANT EVERYBODY, IF WE CAN ALL UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS ARE AND HOW WE GO FROM THERE.
UH, SANDY JENKINS PARKS AND RECREATION MANAGER, UM, BEEN WITH THE CITY FOR A WHILE, SO I KNOW MOST OF YOU.
UM, SO, UH, WHEN WE TOOK A LOOK AT THIS, UM, YES, DEBBIE DID MEET WITH US A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO.
UM, I THINK EVERYBODY'S KIND OF SLEPT SINCE THEN.
UM, AND SO THIS KIND OF CAME AS A SURPRISE TO US, AND I WAS LIKE, OH, UH, YEAH.
UM, A LOT OF CHANGES HAVE HAPPENED IN THE PARKS DEPARTMENT OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.
AND SO, UH, WE DO NOT FEEL AS PARKS AND RECREATION THAT WE ARE IN A POSITION TO BE ABLE TO TAKE ON ANY ADDITIONAL, UH, PARK LAND.
WHEN WE TAKE ON ADDITIONAL PARK LAND IS PART OF THE BOND THAT, UH, THERE ARE SEVERAL NEW PARKS THAT ARE ON THE BOND COMING UP.
UH, THERE'S A PROCESS FOR THAT.
AND THE PROCESS IS THAT IT'S TYPICALLY IDENTIFIED EARLY ON AS A PUBLIC PARK, AND THEN THE CITY THEN TAKES IT ON AND KNOWS THAT WE HAVE MOWING RESPONSIBILITIES, UH, RESPONSIBILITIES FOR A BASKETBALL COURT OR WHATEVER AMENITIES MIGHT BE THERE, A POOL SPLASH PAD, YOU NAME IT.
UM, ALL OF THAT IS THEN OUTLINED.
AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE FEEL VERY COMFORTABLE WITH CURRENTLY IN A DEVELOPMENT, WHETHER IT'S A MASTER PLAN OR A PLATTED PROPERTY.
UH, IT IS A PRIVATE, UM, PARK, UH, OR OPEN SPACE THAT'S ON THAT PARTICULAR, UH, PARKLAND FOR ANYTHING ABOVE FOUR UM, UNITS.
AND SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T FEEL AS A PARKS DEPARTMENT, AS A PUBLIC ENTITY, ABLE TO COME IN TO MAINTAIN ANY, UH, PARKLAND THAT WOULD BE DESIGNATED FOR RESIDENTS.
AND SO WE'RE IN A DIFFICULT POSITION TO BE ABLE TO TAKE THIS.
I ABSOLUTELY UNDERSTAND THE INTENT.
I THINK THE INTENT'S A GOOD INTENT.
I THINK THAT WE NEED TO REALLY FLUSH IT OUT MUCH, MUCH MORE.
UH, WE HAVE DIFFERENT STAFF THAT TAKE CARE OF TRAILS NOW.
WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, AND, AND BRANDON AND I ARE, ARE ON THE SAME TEAM WORKING TO CREATE THAT CONNECTION.
UH, BUT TO TAKE ON ANY ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAYS AS A POLICY IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE, UM, ABLE TO DO.
CAN STAFF PUT UP THAT PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT SECTION OF WHAT'S CURRENTLY THERE? AND KINDA, I MEAN, I'VE SCROLLED DOWN THE TABLE 5 0 3, BECAUSE THAT GIVES, FROM A SCALE PERSPECTIVE, OOPS, YOU JUST PASSED IT.
SO, UH, CURRENTLY THE REQUIRED PARKLAND IS ONE, UM, ONE ACRE PER 70 UNITS, OR IN MULTIFAMILY, ONE ACRE PER ONE 14.
UH, OR THAT'S AN AMENITY, WHICH IS TYPICALLY COMPARABLE.
SO YOU HAVE A POOL OR A COMMUNITY CENTER.
UM, AGAIN, I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND OPEN SPACE VERSUS PERVIOUS COVER.
I THINK INTENT WISE, IT MAKES SENSE PRACTICALLY.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE THERE TODAY.
HOW DO YOU WORK WITH, UM, I, I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT OF WHAT'S TO BE DONE, AND WE SEE A LOT OF TRAILS THAT ARE BEING INTRODUCED, AND I KNOW THAT YOU DID TRAIL EXPANSION UP IN DISTRICT SEVEN, AND I KNOW THAT THERE WERE A LOT OF HOAS AND THERE WAS A CONCERN ABOUT HOW THAT CONNECTIVITY WAS GOING TO OCCUR.
IS THERE A SITUATION WHERE YOU'RE TAKING ON LAND AS YOU'RE MAKING THESE, UH, CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING HOAS? I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CITY IS CURRENTLY DOING MM-HMM.
IF YOU COULD ELABORATE ON THAT, PLEASE.
IT, IT DOES, UM, IN A LOT OF AREAS, ESPECIALLY IN DISTRICT EIGHT, UH, WHERE THERE ARE PRIVATE, UM, GATED SUBDIVISIONS, WHAT WE TRY TO DO IS WE TRY TO ACTUALLY GO AS FAR AS WE CAN TO A BUTT OR TO ACTUALLY BUILD TO THE GATE.
AND THEN THERE'S TYPICALLY LIKE AN ACCESS CODE.
UM, I THINK WE'RE WORKING NOW VERY CLOSELY WITH, UM, UM, IT'S AROUND ELM CREEK, UM, I FORGET THE NAME OF THE SUBDIVISION.
BUT ANYWAY, IT'S, IT'S RIGHT THERE, UH, WHERE THE CREEK IS GOING TO GO INTO, UH, WHERE HARDBERGER PARK IS IN CLOSE BY THERE.
[01:20:01]
AND SO WE, WE WORK REAL CLOSELY WITH, UH, THE ENGINEERS TO TRY TO CREATE THAT CONNECTION, BUT YET KEEP THE RESIDENTS SAFE.SO, UH, BOTH FOR APARTMENTS AND ANY, IN FACT, EVEN AROUND THE RIM, UM, HAVING EMPLOYEES HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY.
SO WE, WE, WE TRY REALLY HARD TO CREATE THAT CONNECTION.
HAS THERE BEEN ANY SITUATIONS WHERE PEOPLE HAVE DONATED LAND? YES.
WE, WE DO, WE WE ACCEPT LAND AND WE, WE GET DONATIONS ON A REGULAR BASIS.
BUT ARE THOSE SMALL IN SIZE OR Y'ALL ARE LOOKING FOR A HUNDRED ACRE DONATIONS? I MEAN, WITH THIS TYPICAL A HUNDRED ACRE DEVELOPMENT? YEAH, FOUR TO FOUR AND A HALF.
I MEAN, 450 UNITS, YOU'RE SIX ACRES OF PARK.
AND BY THE TIME THEY DO AMENITY, YOU'RE LEFT WITH TWO FOR OPEN SPACE.
YOU'RE NOT ACCEPTING SMALL PARCELS, ARE YOU? UH, WE'LL ACCEPT SMALL PARCELS, BUT AGAIN, UH, IF IT'S PART OF A TRAIL OR SOMETHING, IF IT'S PART OF THE TRAIL, IF IT'S PART OF SOMETHING THAT MAKES SENSE.
WE WE'RE LOOKING VERY CLOSELY AT THE TRUSTS FOR PUBLIC LAND 10 MINUTE WALK.
YOU KNOW, WE, WE ARE WORKING A LOT WITH SCHOOLS, UH, TO TRY TO CREATE THAT CONNECTION BECAUSE WE RECOGNIZE THE FACT THAT PUBLIC PARKS ARE SOMETHING THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, ARE VERY NEEDED AND VERY WANTED.
UH, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE RESOURCES TO BE ABLE TO GO AND BUY THEM EVERYWHERE WHERE THERE'S A GAP.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? UM, I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO DENY AND AGAIN, APPRECIATE THE, THE INTENT, UM, OF WHAT'S BROUGHT FORTH.
AND I THINK THAT OVER TIME THERE'LL BE SOME HYBRID, WE FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO IT.
UM, BUT I, I THINK THAT THERE ARE SO MANY BARRIERS AT THIS POINT TO MAKING THIS WORK FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE.
SECOND, THAT'S MY MOTION, UH, UH, MOTION BY, UH, MS. WRIGHT AND A SECOND BY, UH, MR. BROWN.
ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, MALDONADO? I JUST WANNA, I JUST WANNA THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD.
I DO THINK THAT THERE IS A, A GOOD INTENT, UH, BEHIND SOME OF THE LANGUAGE.
AND THERE IS SOME THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE EVALUATED FURTHER BEFORE IT CAN BE ADDED.
AND I THINK THAT THERE'S ALREADY A TRAJECTORY THAT THE CITY HAS PUT FORWARD ON THE PARKS DEPARTMENT BASED ON THE BOND PROJECTS, WHICH WILL ALL BE ON THE BALLOT.
UM, AND, AND SO IN HAVING THAT BEING SAID, IT HAS TO BE SOMETHING THAT CAN BE BUDGETED FOR AND BE IMPLEMENTED TO ENSURE THAT, THAT JUST AS THE CITY MAINTAINS ALL THE OTHER PARK SPACES, THAT THEY'RE ABLE TO MAINTAIN THESE NEW SPACES IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO COME ON BOARD.
AND THOSE ARE JUST MY LAST COMMENTS.
AND I JUST WANT TO, UH, SECOND WHAT MS. MALDONADO SAID, AND I THINK THAT THIS IS REALLY RESONATING WITH THE COMMUNITY, BASED ON WHAT WE HEARD FROM THEIR PUBLIC, UH, COMMENTS AND WHAT WE'VE HEARD TODAY, UH, IN WRITING AND IN PERSON AND, AND BY VOICEMAIL.
UH, AND AS WE LOOK FORWARD TO THE UPCOMING BOND VOTE AND THE COMPLETION OF THE HOWARD P GREENWAY TRAIL SYSTEM, OUR EMERALD NECKLACE, UH, I THINK WE SEE HOW MUCH THE, THE RESIDENTS OF THIS CITY REALLY CARE ABOUT THIS AND ABOUT THE ISSUE OF CONNECTIVITY.
SO I'M HOPEFUL THAT THIS IS A, UH, AN OPENING, AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPAND AND BUILD AND, AND WORK WITH, UH, ADVOCATES ON ALL SIDES TO FIND A WAY TO PROMOTE, IN PARTICULAR, CONNECTIVITY SO THAT PEOPLE CAN REALLY GET OUT THERE AND ENJOY, UH, THE, THE REMARKABLE OUTDOOR SPACES THAT WE HAVE AND THAT WE'VE COME TO REALLY CHERISH DURING THE PANDEMIC TO CHERYL.
UH, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADD A COUPLE OF COMMENTS.
I JUST KNOW, DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE PRACTICALITY OF IT.
UM, ONE THING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO LOOK AT IN THE FUTURE FOR THE CITY IS CHANGING THOSE REQUIREMENTS TO ONE IN 70 AND ONE IN 114, SO THAT THERE IS A, A PORTION OF IT THAT CANNOT BE SET ASIDE WITH THE, UH, DENSER AMENITIES, THE SWIMMING POOLS IN THE COMMUNITY CENTERS.
SO THERE IS A MINIMUM AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE THAT IS REQUIRED.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT NUMBER IS, BUT I THINK THAT WOULD GO A LONG WAY.
AND JUST TO THINK ABOUT THIS, IF, IF ALL THE NEIGHBORHOODS HAD PARKS, IT SLIGHTLY DECREASES THE NEED FOR CITY PARKS BECAUSE THEY'RE GONNA BE USING THEIR OWN COMMUNITY FACILITIES.
WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY, OH, SORRY, MR. MOORE.
IF I MAY, UM, WE WANTED TO ADD ONE MORE COMMENT.
MS. SANDY WANTED TO ADD ONE MORE COMMENT TO THE CONVERSATION, AND THEN I HAVE MR. MOORE AFTER SANDY.
UH, JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT, UH, WITH THE INCLUSION OF THE TRAIL SYSTEM INTO THE BOND, UH, WE ARE WORKING VERY CLOSELY TO CREATE THAT CONNECTIVITY THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, TO BE ABLE TO ACCEPT
[01:25:01]
DONATIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE HAVE THAT CONNECTION, TO BE ABLE TO MAKE IT AROUND THE CITY THROUGH THAT EMERALD NECKLACE.SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT FOR THE RECORD.
ON, UH, THE FEE IN LOU INFORMATION HERE, IT SAYS, THE FAIR MARKET VALUE VARIABLE BE, SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN $50,000 AND SHALL NOT EXCEED $150,000 CONSIDERING THE PRICE OF, OF, OF LAND TODAY.
I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S NEEDS TO HAVE CONSIDERATION, UH, OUTSIDE OF THE, THE MOTION THAT'S BEEN MADE.
UM, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE DEVELOPERS I'VE TALKED TO TODAY AND YESTERDAY ARE PAYING UP TO UPWARDS OF A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS AN ACRE, UH, FOR THE PROPERTY THAT THEY'RE, THAT THEY'RE DEVELOPING.
AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO NOTE THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE A CON, THERE WOULD'VE BEEN A CONFLICT, OR IT'S ACTUALLY IS A CONFLICT IN THE EXISTING CODE.
UH, SECTION THREE A AND B APPEAR TO BE IN, UH, CONFLICT WITH THE FAIR MARKET VALUABLE VARIABLE.
UM, WE HAD A MOTION FOR DENIAL FROM MS. WRIGHT AND A SECOND FROM MR. BROWN.
UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
MOTION FOR DENIAL PASSES IS, UM, ITEM NUMBER 8 23 DASH THREE.
I APOLOGIZE, I'M A LITTLE RASPY, SO THANKS FOR BEARING WITH ME.
I'M WITH N H SS D, AND I'M HERE WITH ANOTHER AMENDMENT FROM OUR REMOVING BARRIERS GROUP.
UM, AND THIS ONE IS TO, UH, ALLOW AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE AT LEAST 50% AFFORDABLE TO USE THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LANDS, UH, PARK SERVE CALCULATOR AS AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD, UM, TO DETERMINE HOW MUCH PARKLAND OR IF ANY PARKLAND NEEDS TO BE DEDICATED, UH, TO THE PROPERTY.
YOU HEARD SANDY MENTION, UH, THE T P L IN HER COMMENTS EARLIER.
UM, AND THE REASON THAT WE LIKED THAT TOOL IS THAT, UM, IT'S A VERY SIMPLE TO NAVIGATE TOOL, BOTH FOR STAFF AND BOTH MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY, UM, WHO CAN SEE VERY CLEARLY, YES, THIS IS AN AREA WHERE WE NEED TO PROVIDE A PARK, OR NO, WE DO NOT.
AND THE REASON THAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE WANTED TO PUT THIS AMENDMENT BEFORE YOU IS TO OFFSET THE COSTS OF OPERATING AFFORDABLE HOUSING, ESPECIALLY OVER THE LONG TERM.
UM, AND THEIR HOPE WAS THAT, UM, AS YOU'LL SEE IF WE CAN PULL UP THE MAP, THIS IS WHAT THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND LOOKS LIKE FOR SAN ANTONIO.
SO ANYWHERE THAT'S GREEN, UM, YOU WOULD NOT NEED TO PROVIDE, UM, A PARKLAND DEDICATION.
ANYWHERE THAT'S PURPLE, YOU WOULD NEED TO PROVIDE THAT.
SO AS YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THE AREAS ON THIS MAP WHERE LAND COSTS ARE HIGHEST, YOU WOULD SAVE A LITTLE BIT OF, UM, EXPENSES ON OPERATING A PARKLAND LONG TERM.
DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? OKAY.
UM, I WAS CURIOUS, CAN, I DON'T HAVE A SUGGESTION FOR A CHANGE, BUT CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO THINGS TO ME, UM, AFTER READING THIS AND, AND THE PRECEDING ITEM, I WAS WONDERING WHY THIS WASN'T INCLUDED IN UNDER SECTION E, THE DESIGNATION FOR PARKLAND? SORRY, I DON'T, I DON'T SEE A SECTION E I'M NOT, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT THIS SECTION.
SO THIS IS, UM, THIS IS SUBSECTION, SUBSECTION C PARKLAND CHARACTERISTICS.
IF YOU GO TO THE CODE AND SCROLL DOWN, I BELIEVE E IS DESIGNATION, WE CAN PULL IT UP PARKLAND, THEY'RE SCROLLING ON THEIR OTHER SCREEN, SO NOT TO MAKE EVERYONE DIZZY.
UM, SO THE SUBCOMMITTEE DID CONSIDER, UM, MAKING AMENDMENTS TO THIS SECTION.
UH, IN PARTICULAR, UH, YOU KNOW, A HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO WHERE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPER IS GOING TO PROVIDE A PARK ON SITE.
WHAT IF THEY COULD DEDICATE THAT TO THE PARKS DEPARTMENT AND HAVE THEM OPERATE IT? I THINK YOU ALL HEARD IN YOUR CONVERSATION, UM, ON THE LAST ITEM WHY THAT WASN'T, UH, SUPPORTED BY PARKS.
SO INSTEAD WE, UH, WENT WITH THIS AMENDMENT.
[01:30:01]
OKAY.MY, MY OTHER COMMENT IS ON THE, THE 10 MINUTE WALK, UM, THAT JUST SEEMED A LITTLE, UM, LONG FOR A WALK TO A PARK.
UM, I'M SURE MANY PEOPLE CAN DO THAT, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT PROBABLY CANNOT.
ACTUALLY THE 10 MINUTE WALK, IT HAS BEEN, UH, WITH THE TRUST REPUBLIC LAND FOR AT LEAST THE LAST 10 YEARS, IT'S ACTUALLY HALF A MILE.
SO IT'S THE, IT'S THE NATIONALLY ACCEPTED 10 MINUTE WALK IS THE NATIONALLY ACCEPTED STANDARD.
AND IF I COULD JUST ADD TO THAT TOO, THE, THE T P L ALSO TAKES INTO ACCOUNT IF THERE ARE BARRIERS TO ACCESS.
SO, UM, IT'S NOT JUST 10 MINUTES AS THE CROW FLIES, IT'S 10 REAL WALKING MINUTES.
UM, AND THAT WAS IMPORTANT TO OUR SUBCOMMITTEE, WHICH, UM, INCLUDES MEMBERS WHO USE A WHEELCHAIR, AND THEY WERE REALLY WANTING TO SEE THAT IN THIS AMENDMENT.
GREAT, THANK YOU FOR THOSE CLARIFICATIONS.
UM, MAL COMMENTS, MOTION BY MALDONADO? NO, NO QUESTION.
UH, MALTO HAD COMMENTS, SORRY.
UM, WHEN YOU SAY AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS, I'M ASSUMING THAT THIS IS GONNA BE ADMINISTERED BY THE DEPARTMENT TO ENSURE THE AFFORDABILITY EXISTS FOR HOW LONG? SO IT WOULD BE AFFORDABLE UNDER THE DEFINITION THAT YOU ALL CONSIDERED EARLIER, BUT FOR HOW LONG IS IT JUST FROM INITIAL, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE FEDERAL AND T D H C A RESTRICTIONS FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE GETTING TAX CREDITS, BUT FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT, WHAT IS THE PROTECTION THAT ENSURES WE'RE NOT JUST EXEMPTING PEOPLE WHO COME UNDER THE GUISE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING? THAT'S MY, THAT'S MY BIG FEAR IS THAT THE INTENT IS NOT EXECUTABLE UNLESS WE ENSURE THAT WE, WE PROTECT IT WITH THE LANGUAGE.
SO THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING WHAT'S THE, WHAT'S THE, UH, THE ADMINISTRATIVE PIECE BEHIND THIS? YEAH, SO JUST LIKE IN THE DEFINITION OF AFFORDABILITY, IT COMES DOWN TO WHATEVER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROGRAM ARE.
SO THE LENGTH OF TIME OR THE AFFORDABILITY COVENANT AS WE CALL IT, MIGHT VARY FROM ANYWHERE BETWEEN 15, 20 YEARS AND SOMETHING LIKE A TAX CREDIT ALL THE WAY UP TO 99 YEARS IF IT'S A TRUST PROPERTY.
AND IT DEPENDS ON, UM, THE TERMS OF THE PROGRAM.
SO THERE'S AT LEAST A MINIMUM OF 15 YEARS.
IT DEPENDS ON THE TERMS OF THE PROGRAM.
I MEAN, IS THERE A PROGRAM THAT OFFERS IT ONLY FOR FIVE YEARS? YEAH.
UM, FOR LIKE SINGLE FAMILY HOME REPAIR, YOU WOULD TYPICALLY SEE A FIVE YEAR COVERING IT, RIGHT? YOU WANNA ADD TO THAT? YEAH, I THINK, YOU KNOW, SARAH IS KIND OF SPEAKING TO, IT'S HARD TO PREDICT.
AND SOMETIMES WHEN NEW POLICIES OR PROGRAMS ARE BEING DEVELOPED, THEY MAY DETERMINE THAT, UM, TYPICALLY YOU WON'T SEE ANYTHING LESS THAN FIVE YEARS.
UM, BUT AGAIN, THAT'S KIND OF DETERMINED AT THE FUNDING LEVEL, AND WE WOULD REVIEW THAT.
SO YOU WOULDN'T JUST GET SOMEBODY SAYING, I HAVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.
I MEAN, THEY WOULD COME TO US AND ONE OF THOSE CRITERIA IS THAT YOU DO HAVE SOME KIND OF LAND USE RESTRICTION, SO YOU COULDN'T COME WITH NO LAND USE RESTRICTION AT ALL.
AND SO OUR, OUR DEPARTMENT WILL WORK WITH MELISSA AND HER TEAM TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ABLE TO REVIEW THAT ON OUR END.
TO MAKE SURE IT MEETS THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEFINITION.
YEAH, COMMENTS, MR. IS, THE INTENT HERE IS TO REDUCE THE PARKLAND GREEN COVERAGE.
THE INTENT HERE IS TO REDUCE THE COST OF MAINTAINING AND DEVELOPING AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
SO THE PROPOSAL IS THAT IN DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE AT LEAST 50% AFFORDABLE, IF THEY'RE ALREADY IN AN AREA THAT'S WITHIN A 10 MINUTE REAL WALK OF A PARK, THEY DON'T HAVE TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL PARK.
I, THIS IS THE OPPOSITE OF THE PREVIOUS PROVISION THAT WAS PROPOSED.
NOW WE ARE PROPOSING TO REDUCE THE GREEN COVERAGE AT SOME POINT.
I I, I FEEL THE INTENTION HERE IS, IS JUST NOT ABOUT THE COST.
THIS IS REDUCING THE GREEN COVERAGE.
UH, I, I, I THINK THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT IS TO RE, IS TO REDUCE THE REQUIREMENT OR ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT THAT ADDITIONAL PARK LAND BE DEDICATED WHERE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IS ALREADY LOCATED NEAR SUBSTANTIAL PARKLAND.
I, I'M IN FAVOR IN ADDING MORE GREEN COVERAGE AND HAVING THIS IN VERY CLOSE AFFORDABLE COMMUNITY IS ALSO THE BENEFIT OF THEM.
AT 10 MINUTES WALK TO ME, IT'S STILL VERY LONG, UH, A ROAD WITH A SIDEWALK.
UH, A SIDEWALK CAN BE ADDED LATER ON THE EXPENSE OF THE CITY.
AND THAT NOW WE WAVE THAT AFFORDABILITY ON THE DEVELOPER BECAUSE OF A SIDEWALK.
UM, I, I, I, I SEE WE, WE RETURN AN AMENDMENT BECAUSE OF A GREEN COVERAGE.
NOW WE ADDED BACK IN, IN THE OPPOSITE WAY.
UH, I STILL NOT SEEING THIS TO BE REALLY FEASIBLE FROM MY PERSPECTIVE.
[01:35:01]
THE COST SIDE, BUT I'M ALSO LEANING TOWARDS THIS.THE WAIVER IS NOT REALLY FEASIBLE FROM MY PERSPECTIVE.
I'M FROM DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE, NOT JUST THE COST.
MADAM CHAIR, IF I MAY, UH, THIS IS MELISSA RAMIREZ.
I THINK WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING, YOU KNOW, THIS IS, THIS CONVERSATION IS A VERY DIFFICULT CONVERSATION.
UM, WE ALL UNDERSTAND THERE'S A POLICY OUT THERE, A SHIFT, UM, IN THE DISCUSSION THAT IS HAPPENING THAT WE NEED TO HAVE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
WE WILL NOT HAVE ENOUGH HOUSING FOR PEOPLE IN THE FUTURE IF WE DON'T START TO TAKE ACTION.
NOW, HAVING THIS DISCUSSION TODAY, AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS, IS NOT A 50 80 PERCENTAGE OF OUR DEVELOPMENT THAT COMES THROUGH.
THE LARGER PROJECTS WILL BE REQUIRED TO CONTINUE TO DEDICATE THAT ARE NOT AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THESE ARE THE ONE-OFF PROJECTS THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH.
I PROBABLY CAN COUNT THE NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS THAT WE PROCESS.
I PROBABLY GET INVOLVED WITH THE MAJORITY OF THEM.
SO THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE A HUGE IMPACT TO OUR CITY AND TO OUR GREEN ENVIRONMENT.
UH, THERE'S OTHER POLICIES AND GOALS THAT THE PARKS DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN TASKED WITH BY CITY COUNCIL TO ENSURE WE HAVE, UH, THAT WALKABILITY THOSE TRAILS, THAT THAT IS AN IMPORTANT PART THAT IS STILL GOING TO CONTINUE.
SO I DO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFICULTY IN THE CONVERSATION, BUT THIS IS TRULY ABOUT, UH, BALANCE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
QUESTION TO YOU, UH, HOW MANY NUMBERS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING YOU HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCED DURING YOUR EMPLOYMENT AT SAN ANTONIO, BUT ROUGHLY? I LIKE, I, LIKE I SAID, I DON'T KNOW SARAH, IF YOU HAVE ANY NUMBERS THAT YOU CAN SHARE, BUT LIKE I SAID, I, I HAVE HAD JUST A HANDFUL THAT I'VE BEEN DEALING WITH IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.
NOW THAT WE HAVE ALL THE TOOLS IN PLACE TO HELP SUPPORT, UH, SUPPORT AFFORDABLE HOUSING, I ANTICIPATE IT WILL INCREASE, BUT NOT TO THE CAPACITY OF COMMERCIAL, RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT.
LOGAN, I MEAN, SORRY, GO AHEAD.
I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, UM, TO MELISSA'S POINT, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY THE, THE NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS THAT WOULD, UM, QUALIFY UNDER THIS, WHICH AGAIN, WHICH ISN'T A 10 MINUTE WALK.
SO REALLY LOOKING AT MORE OF THOSE URBAN AREAS THAT ARE CLOSER, THAT NUMBER IS REALLY LOW.
I MEAN, WE PROBABLY DO, UM, MAYBE 30 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES A YEAR THAT WOULD MEET THIS CRITERIA.
UH, AND MAYBE FOUR TO FIVE MULTIFAMILY.
AND THAT'S KIND OF BEING JUST GENEROUS.
UM, SO IT'S NOT A, IT'S NOT A SUPER HIGH NUMBER THAT WE GET EVERY YEAR.
AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE, THE QUESTION ON MORE GREEN SPACE, WHICH IS IMPORTANT, AND BEING ABLE TO REDUCE COSTS WHERE WE CAN TO ENSURE THAT THE DEVELOPER CAN OFFER THE LOWEST, WHETHER IT'S RENT OR MORTGAGE OR OR HOME SALES PRICE POSSIBLE.
THOSE ARE ALL THOSE THINGS THAT THEY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.
WHAT IS THAT ONGOING FEE? AND CERTAINLY IF, UM, YOU KNOW, SOME OF OUR LOWER INCOME RESIDENTS, THEY NEED ACCESS TO A PARK.
IF THAT'S BEING PROVIDED, I THINK THAT MEETS, YOU KNOW, KIND OF THAT CHECKLIST FOR THERE.
BUT I THINK THAT'S THE INTENT OF THESE AMENDMENTS IS TO KIND OF ADDRESS THE AFFORDABILITY ISSUE.
AND MR. DKI, IF I MAY, UM, I KNOW WE DON'T HAVE HARD NUMBERS TO PROVIDE YOU TODAY, BUT WE HAVE A DEDICATED AFFORDABLE HOUSING TEAM, UH, AND WE ARE A, UH, PERFORMANCE MEASURE, NUMBER DRIVEN DEPARTMENT.
WE ARE HAVE TO BUILD THAT INFORMATION INTO OUR SYSTEM.
AND ONCE THAT'S BUILT, WE'LL BE ABLE TO PUSH OUT THAT DATA OF HOW MANY AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS HAVE BEEN PROCESSED.
SO THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE ARE FOCUSING ON AS WELL.
YEAH, THIS IS GONNA COME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION LATER ON, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
I WILL SEE YOU THERE, SIR, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND POINT OF INFORMATION? OH, GO AHEAD.
UH, CHRISTOPHER FULLERTON, UH, IN THE DISCUSSIONS, UH, WHEN THEY DECIDED TO USE THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND PARK SCORE, UM, SINCE WE'RE INCORPORATING AN EXTERNAL NUMBER BY REFERENCE, WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION OVER WHETHER OR NOT TO USE A TERM LIKE, UH, THE MOST RECENT, ALTHOUGH SINCE IT'S ANNUAL AND WE HAVE A MULTI-YEAR APPROVAL PROCESS, YOU KNOW, A SCORE FROM THE LAST FIVE YEARS, UH, WAS, WAS THAT AN ISSUE DURING THE CONVERSATIONS? I THINK THAT'S A GOOD POINT OF CLARIFICATION THAT WE CAN INCLUDE.
I BELIEVE T P L IS UPDATED ANNUALLY, SO, UM, MAYBE SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID IN THE DEFINITION OF AFFORDABILITY AMENDMENT, WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO ADD A WORD, UM, TO THAT.
SO MAY, IS THERE ANY THOUGHT OVER WHETHER MOST RECENT WOULD INCONVENIENT IF YOU HAVE A TWO YEAR APPROVAL PROCESS FOR A PROJECT? I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, OUR TWO YEAR TIMELINE ALSO APPLIES TO, UM, THE HUD DEFINITION.
SO USUALLY WE'RE, UM, LOOKING AT THE DEFINITION AT THE TIME WHERE, UM, THEY COME TO MAKE THE ASK.
[01:40:01]
SO SARAH, IS THAT ASK AT THE TIME OF SUBMITTAL FOR FINANCIAL INCENTIVES OR AT TIME OF PLAT OR PERMIT? IN THE CASE OF THE DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING, IT WOULD BE AT THE TIME OF FINANCIAL INCENTIVES.I WOULD THINK IN THE CASE OF THE PLAT, WHICH MIGHT BE LATER ON, OR IT MIGHT BE BEFORE, UM, IT MIGHT MAKE MORE SENSE THAN I WOULD LEAD ON THE D S D TEAM TO SAY IT AT THAT TIME.
WELL, IF EVERYTHING ELSE YOU DO IS TIED TO APPLICATION FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE, I WOULD MAKE THIS TIED TO THE SAME PLACE.
'CAUSE THE DEVELOPER NEEDS CERTAINTY OF KNOWING WHAT THE RULES ARE.
AND I'D HATE TO SAY FOR FINANCES, THEY GO IN ONE YEAR AND TWO YEARS LATER THEY COME IN FOR PLAT WITH A VERY, YOU KNOW, WITH A DIFFERENT NUMBER.
JUST LETTING THEM TRACK EVERYTHING TO THE SAME POINT, I THINK MAKES A LOT MORE SENSE.
IT'S EASIER FOR YOU GUYS TO TRACK AS WELL.
DID YOU HAVE SOME, THE ONLY THING I WAS GONNA ADD IS TODAY WHERE, WHEN, UH, NEW DEVELOPMENT IS BEING PROCESSED, ALL OF THAT IS ASSESSED AT THE TIME OF PLATTING.
IF THE PROPERTY DOESN'T HAVE TO BE PLATTED, THERE'S CONVERSATIONS THAT ARE HAPPENING AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT.
SO UNDER, YOU KNOW, CODE RIGHT NOW, IT'S TRIGGERS, WHENEVER PERMIT IS FIRST APPLIED, THEIR REQUEST FOR INCENTIVES WOULDN'T TIE TO THAT TIME CLOCK UNDER YOUR CODE IN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
SO HERE, IF WE WANNA TIE THE TWO, WE SHOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, PARK SCORE, YOU KNOW, AT THE TIME OF WHATEVER YOUR APPLICATION IS TITLED TO CHRISTOPHER'S POINT IN, IN PART I POINT OUT ON THE T P L WEBSITE, THEY JUST ADDED EQUITY TO THEIR SCORE IN 2021, WHICH, WHICH IS A GOOD DEVELOPMENT.
BUT I SUSPECT THAT IN THE FUTURE THEY MIGHT ALSO TINKER WITH THOSE DEFINITIONS AND THAT COULD HAVE IN A FEW ISOLATED CASES A SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT ON THE SCORE.
AND IF YOU'RE A YEAR INTO A, A, A PROCESS AND, AND THEN UH, THE SCORE CHANGES, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU HAVE A BIG HEADACHE ON YOUR HANDS.
SO, SHALL WE, FROM WHAT I'M HEARING, UH, ARE THERE ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON WHETHER TO, OH, HERE WE GO.
ALRIGHT, I'M SORRY FOR ME
I, I, I THINK IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT THAT THAT COMMITMENT IS SECURED BEFORE YOU GO THROUGH THE PLATT PROCESS.
BECAUSE ONE OF THE MANY TECHNICAL REVIEWING AGENCIES ON A, ON A PLATT IS THE PARKS DEPARTMENT.
THE PARKS DEPARTMENT WOULD BE THE ONE CONDUCTING THE REVIEW TO DETERMINE IF YOU HAVE TO DEDICATE OR IF YOU'RE WITH WITHIN A 10 MINUTE WALK.
SO WE WOULD NEED TO KNOW THAT N H SS D HAS CERTIFIED THEM AS AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT SO THAT THAT TECHNICAL REVIEW OF THE PLATT COULD ACCURATELY BE CONDUCTED.
SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THAT OCCURS BEFORE THE PLATT.
OTHERWISE WE'RE GONNA BE SPINNING OUR WHEELS AT THAT TECHNICAL REVIEW, WAITING FOR THE DETERMINATION TO COME DOWN.
AND THOSE ARE TYPICALLY PROCEDURAL PROCESSES, UM, THAT WE CAN WORK OUT.
UM, WHICH WE ARE ALSO THAT, LIKE I SAID EARLIER, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE PUTTING INTO OUR BUILD SA SYSTEM, UM, THOSE TYPES OF TRIGGERS AND AUTOMATIC REVIEWS.
SO, UM, THE INFORMATION IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY IS ABOUT THE TECHNICAL REVIEW PORTION OF THAT.
SO WE JUST HUDDLED AND AGREED THAT AT THE TIME AN AWARD IS MADE, WHICH WOULD BE THE SAME TIMELINE THAT WE USE FOR AFFORDABILITY DEFINITIONS WOULD PROBABLY BE THE EASIEST WAY AND WE CAN JUST REPORT TO THE D S D TEAM.
UM, AN AWARD'S BEEN MADE HERE, THE SCORES, BUT WHAT, OKAY, AN AWARD IS MADE MEANS SOMETHING TO YOU CODE WISE, WE NEED TO DEFINE THAT A LITTLE BETTER.
I MEAN MAYBE WHAT WE COULD DO, AND TO MELISSA'S POINT IS WE WOULD REVIEW IT AND I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY MORE OF A REVIEW PROCESS THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT CAN BE INCLUDED IN THE DE SO I'M NOT SURE IT'S NOT PLATTING, BUT IT'S SOME KIND OF REVIEW FROM OUR DEPARTMENT THAT SAYS THEY'RE AFFORDABLE.
AND WE WOULDN'T DO THAT UNTIL AFTER THERE, YOU KNOW, FUNDING HAS BEEN SECURED.
SO THEY GET THEIR FUNDING SECURED, THEN WE REVIEW IT TO ENSURE IT'S AFFORDABLE AND THEN WE CAN NOTIFY D S D BEFORE IT GOES THROUGH THAT PLANNING PROCESS OR PERMIT PROCESS.
SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE CORRECT, WE COMMUNICATE WITH SEVERAL DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS OUTSIDE OF OUR SYSTEM, UM, IF THERE ARE NOT PROCEDURES IN PLACE WITHIN OUR SYSTEM.
SO WE DO THAT ON A DAILY BASIS UNTIL THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE THE WORKAROUND UNTIL WE GET ALL OF THE STEPS IN PLACE IN OUR SYSTEM.
UM, WHERE AN APPLICANT IS UPLOADING THE LETTER THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED, UM, HE'S ACKNOWLEDGING OR SHE'S ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THEY ARE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT AND THEY HAVE ALL THE PROPER DOCUMENTATION, ALL OF THAT INFORMATION CAN BE UPLOADED INTO OUR SYSTEM IN THE FUTURE.
SO MELISSA AND IAN, WHAT I THINK WE'RE SAYING IS WE WOULD NOT SPECIFY WHEN AND HOW IN CODE THAT THAT WOULD BE MORE OF A PROCESS THAT'S INTERNALLY
[01:45:01]
WORKED OUT BY THE CITY.I MEAN, WE'VE GOT A LOT OF PLACES IN CODE WHERE YEAH.
OR IN OUR PROCESS WHERE WE DON'T SAY YOU DO X, Y, AND Z WHEN IF NEED BE, WE ISSUE IBS, BUT FOR THE MOST PART Y'ALL ARE CLARIFYING PROCESSES AND WE DON'T PUT SOMETHING HERE IN CODE THAT ISN'T REALLY YET EFFECTIVE.
AND WE CAN WORK WITH D SS D ON IF WE DO AN IB OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, THAT WOULD HELP OUR CUSTOMERS AN INFORMATION BULLETIN JUST TO EXPLAIN THE PROCESS.
UM, WHICH IS SOMETHING WE DO ALL THE TIME.
SINCE THIS DOESN'T EXIST TODAY, IT'S HARD TO SAY EXACTLY WHAT THAT TRIGGER.
ARE YOU GOOD WITH SAYING HOW TO CODE? SO, UH, I GUESS WE, WE HAVE DISCUSSED IN THE PAST THE IMPORTANCE OF CLARITY IN THE CODE, ESPECIALLY FOR RELATIVELY INEXPERIENCED, UH, UH, DEVELOPERS.
BUT IF, IF STAFF FEEL THAT THEY HAVE A GOOD INTERNAL SYSTEM FOR NEGOTIATING THIS, THEN UH, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH, UH, WITHDRAWING IT AND WE CAN SEE HOW THIS PROCESS WORKS OUT OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.
JUST, JUST AS AN EXAMPLE, WE TALKED ABOUT A NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS EARLIER RELATED TO PLATT EXCEPTIONS.
YOU KNOW, WE ADD WHAT CRITERIA YOU HAVE TO MEET TO QUALIFY FOR A PLATT EXCEPTION TO THE CODE.
WE ADD THE FEE FOR THE APPLICATION FOR A PLAID EXCEPTION TO THE CODE, BUT WE DON'T ADD THE STEP-BY-STEP PROCESS THAT STAFF CONDUCTS TO REVIEW AND EITHER APPROVE OR DENY THOSE.
SO I, I WOULD AGREE THAT PROCEEDING WITH THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT AT LEAVING THE STEPS FOR STAFF TO FIGURE OUT IS THE MOST EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE WAY.
I BELIEVE WE HAD A, A MOTION BY MS. MALDONADO AND A SECOND FROM MR. LEASEMAN.
IS THAT CORRECT? MR. GARCIA? OH, MR. GARCIA.
AND SORRY TO BELABOR THIS, BUT DID MR. TAYLOR HAVE COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM?
SORRY MIKE, WE TOTALLY NO, THAT THAT, THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE.
UM, MEMBER OF THE REMOVING BARRIERS COMMITTEE, I WILL SAY I'M ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT THIS.
I I DID WANT TO ADDRESS JUST ONE COMMENT ABOUT THE COST.
UM, SO PARKLAND OBVIOUSLY IS, IS UM, A BENEFIT TO HOMEOWNERS, BUT ONE OF THE CHALLENGES THAT WE HAVE IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS IS NOT THE, IT'S NOT THE COST OF BUILDING THE PARK LAND INITIALLY, IT'S THE ONGOING MAINTENANCE COST.
AND SO WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO WHEN YOU HAVE A PARK IN AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, YOU HAVE TO SET UP AN H O A THAT MAINTAINS THAT PARK LONG TERM.
AND SO THAT'S AN ONGOING COST TO THOSE RESIDENTS EVERY MONTH THEY'RE PAYING, UH, TO MAINTAIN THAT PARK.
WHAT THIS DOES IS IT SHIFTS THAT ONTO, UM, ESSENTIALLY THE PUBLIC IN, IN AREAS WHERE THERE IS SIGNIFICANT PARK LAND ALREADY.
SO, UM, SO IT'S A TRADE OFF, BUT I THINK, I THINK IT REDUCES THE COST OF THE, UH, OF THE UNIT INITIALLY AND THEN IT ALSO MAKES IT MORE AFFORDABLE LONG-TERM.
SO I THINK IT'S, IT'S A HUGE BENEFIT TO, UH, RESIDENTS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
UM, SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THE MOTION.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? UH, AND LET THE MINUTES SHOW THAT COMMISSIONER ZUKI IS OPPOSED.
MOTION PASSES AND WE'RE MOVING ON TO NUMBER NINE, ITEM SEVEN DASH ONE.
SANDY, DO YOU WANNA GO AHEAD AND INTRODUCE THIS ITEM? THANK YOU.
UH, SO, UM, I HAVE BEEN MANAGING THE FEE IN LIEU OF PARKLAND DEDICATION FOR 12 YEARS.
AND, UM, IT IS SOMETIMES VERY DIFFICULT TO FIND A PARK, A PUBLIC PARK WITHIN AN AREA THAT IS CURRENTLY OUTLINED IN THE U D C.
AND THIS LANGUAGE WAS ACTUALLY INITIATED BACK IN, UM, FROM MY MEMORY, 2004 WHEN THE ORIGINAL U D C CAME UP.
NOW WE'VE SPENT MOST OF THE FEE IN LIEU OF DEDICATION, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THERE'S A COUPLE OF AREAS WHERE THERE ARE NO PUBLIC PARKS, UM, ONE OF THEM BEING NEAR CALAVERAS LAKE.
THERE'S SOME VERY, UM, SMALL DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE HAPPENED THERE.
AND THERE IS NO PARK, PUBLIC PARK WITHIN, UH, THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS.
WE HAVE MEDINA RIVER NATURAL AREA AND MEDINA RIVER GREENWAY THAT COULD USE THESE FUNDS.
BUT CURRENTLY THE, UM, THE CONSTRAINTS ARE THERE DISTANCE WISE, UH, THERE'S A COUPLE OF OTHER AREAS IN THE NORTHEAST,
[01:50:01]
UM, VERY SMALL DEVELOPMENTS.UM, AND JUST WITH THE FEE IN LIEU OF, WE TYPICALLY ONLY GET ABOUT FIVE DEVELOPMENTS A YEAR THAT ACTUALLY PAY INTO THE FUND.
AND SO WHEN WE UTILIZE THE FEE IN LIEU OF, WE TYPICALLY ADD SOMETHING TO AN EXISTING PARK.
UM, MOSTLY LIGHTS IS SOMETHING THAT'S, UH, TYPICALLY EASY TO DO BECAUSE THE FEE, UH, IS SOMEWHERE IN THE RANGE OF ABOUT $5,000 OR SO, WHICH IS THE COST OF A LIGHT POLE.
SO THAT'S KIND OF JUST A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND OF WHAT WE DO, BUT, UH, WE IN THE PARKS DEPARTMENT WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO KIND OF, UM, UTILIZE IN A PARK THAT'S NEEDED.
AND ESPECIALLY IN THOSE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE STILL OUT THERE WITH, AT CALAVERAS LAKE, WE WOULD LIKE TO SHIP THEM OVER TO MEDINA AND UM, BE ABLE TO MAKE SOME, UM, AMENDMENT OR SOME AMENITIES THERE THAT, UH, THE PARK DOES NEED.
AND, UM, SO THAT'S, THAT'S MY SUGGESTION.
MR. MOORE, UH, THIS IS A QUESTION FOR LEGAL.
UH, DOES THIS CHANGE CREATE A PROBLEM WITH THE, UH, ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY STATUTE? UM, OUR ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY, THE WAY THAT WE GENERALLY DO IT, WE, I DON'T BELIEVE WE TAKE, UM, PARKLAND DEDICATION INTO ACCOUNT.
RACHEL, SUSAN WAS LOOKING AROUND LIKE WHO IS SPEAKING
I, I DON'T, I DON'T BELIEVE, UH, SPEAKING OF ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY, THAT IT REALLY MAKES ANY DIFFERENCES IF AS LONG AS IT'S A CITY IMPOSED EXACTION OR COLLECTION THAT DOESN'T APPLY, UH, IN, IN ACCORDANCE WITH A PERCENTAGE OF THE USE, UH, I BELIEVE THAT WOULD APPLY, WOULDN'T IT? TWO DAY DATE WE HAVE NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION PARK REQUIREMENTS, UM, OR IMPROVEMENTS INTO THE TRAFFIC MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS AND UTILIZED THAT AS A THRESHOLD.
I SEE CHRISTINA WIGGLING OVER THERE, I DON'T KNOW IF SHE'S COMING TOWARDS THE PODIUM.
CHRISTINA DE LA CRUZ OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES T I STREETS AND TRAFFIC MANAGER.
SO WE HAVE NEVER TAKEN IN PARKS, IT'S ONLY BEEN PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAYS THAT ARE FOR STREETS.
IT HAS NEVER BEEN PARK DEDICATION.
WE HAVE A TABLE UNDER 35 5 0 2 E THAT CLEARLY SAYS THE THINGS THAT CAN APPLY TOWARDS PROPORTIONALITY AND IT'S PURELY FOR ROADWAY CAPACITY, RIGHT OF WAYS.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S HIS QUESTION.
MOTION TO APPROVE SECOND MOTION FOR MR. BROWN.
SECOND FROM MS. TACKETT COMMENT QUESTION.
OKAY, MR. UH, IS THERE A CURRENT, CURRENT LIST OF WHEN THEY CAN DO THE FEE IN LIEU? I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.
WHEN CAN A DEVELOPER PROVIDE FEE IN LIEU INSTEAD OF PROVIDING PARKLAND? THERE ARE LIMITATIONS IN THE CODE.
YEAH, I I REMEMBER THAT THERE IS, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE.
I'D LIKE TO SEE THEM BEFORE I MAKE UP MY MIND.
THE TEAM IS PULLING IT UP RIGHT NOW.
AND SANDY, AS I UNDERSTAND THIS, ALL THIS IS DOING IS DOESN'T CHANGE IF WHEN OR HOW MUCH THEY PAY IN FEE IN LIEU OF THIS JUST REMOVES THE LIMITS ON WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH IT.
SO YOU'RE STILL GETTING THE SAME MONEY UNDER THE SAME CRITERIA, BUT THIS GIVES PARKS THE FLEXIBILITY TO BUNDLE AND USE THAT WITHOUT THE BOUNDARIES OF IT BEING WITHIN A DISTANCE OF A SPECIFIC PROJECT.
IF, IF WE, IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FEE IN LIEU OF, BUT IT ALLOWS US TO BE ABLE TO USE THE FUNDS WHERE IT'S NEEDED MORE.
UH, WE HAVE A BASE FAILURE, YOU KNOW, WE CAN HURRY UP AND USE FEE IN LIEU OF FUNDS, UH, FIRST AND SO IT, IT WOULD HELP US OUT TREMENDOUSLY.
AND I'LL SAY RIGHT OR WRONG, STORMWATER FEE IS NOT TIED TO A SPECIFIC PROJECT AND LIMITATION.
SO THIS WOULD MAKE PARK DEDICATION MORE SIMILAR TO WASTE STORMWATER FEE IN LIEU OF IS CHRISTOPHER FULLERTON.
UH, ALONG THOSE LINES, IT'S GOOD TO KNOW WHAT PARALLELS THERE ARE IN THE CODE CURRENTLY
[01:55:02]
RIGHT NOW, PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A RELATIVELY SMALL AMOUNT, BUT SHOULD MARKET CONDITIONS CHANGE HYPOTHETICALLY AND THESE RULES GO INTO EFFECT AND THIS TURNS INTO A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF, OF MONEY, WHAT, UH, PROCEDURES DOES PARKS AND REC HAVE INTERNALLY TO TRY TO ADDRESS THE EQUITY QUESTION? IF HYPOTHETICALLY ONE PART OF TOWN SEES A HUGE EXPLOSION IN THIS, HOW DO WE PREVENT ALL OF THOSE FUNDS FROM BEING SIPHONED OFF TO ANOTHER PART? WELL THAT, THAT'S A VERY VALID QUESTION BECAUSE I ACTUALLY THOUGHT THAT WAS GONNA COME UP.YOU KNOW, WHY, WHY CAN'T ALL THE SOUTH SIDE PARKS GO TO USE FUNDS FOR, YOU KNOW, A NORTH SIDE PARK OR EVEN VICE VERSA? UM, IT'S, IT'S KIND OF, THAT'S KIND OF A DIFFICULT QUESTION TO ANSWER VERY HONESTLY.
I MEAN, THERE'S 257 PARKS NOW AND I CAN TELL YOU EVERY AMENITY IN EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE PARKS, AND I CAN TELL YOU WHERE THE NEED IS IN EVERY ONE OF THOSE PARKS.
I'M NOT GONNA BE AROUND FOREVER.
I, I WOULD LIKE TO, BUT I, BUT I COULD TELL YOU RIGHT NOW IF I COULD USE THOSE FUNDS IN CALAVERAS, I COULD TELL YOU EXACTLY WHERE I'M GONNA USE THOSE AND THAT THAT'S UNFORTUNATELY THAT'S JUST THE REALITY IS THAT I KNOW WHERE THE NEEDS ARE AND I UH, JUST HAVING THIS TOOL TO BE ABLE TO USE THOSE FUNDS IS GOING TO JUST HELP US BE ABLE TO BRIDGE THAT GAP.
YEAH, IT'S G ONE THAT HAS THE, WELL, WE'RE NOT CHANGING THAT.
SO BASICALLY WHAT IT SAYS IS YOU CAN PAY A HUNDRED PERCENT IN FEE IF YOU HAVE LESS THAN 210 LOTS OR IT'S LIKE, OR YOU'RE INSIDE A MULTIFAMILY INSIDE FOUR 10.
SO BASICALLY AN INFILL OVER THAT YOU CAN ONLY DO UP TO 50% OF YOUR DEDICATION REQUIREMENT IS FEE AND THE REST HAS TO ACTUALLY BE PARKED.
OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE FLOOR.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.
UM, COMMITTEE, WE ARE ABOUT HALFWAY, NOT EVEN HALFWAY THROUGH OUR ITEMS THAT WE ARE HALFWAY THROUGH OUR TIME.
UM, DOES ANYBODY NEED A QUICK BREAK OR DO YOU WANNA KEEP GOING? KEEP GOING, KEEP GOING.
OKAY, I'M GONNA PASS THE MIC OVER TO MS. TACKETT 'CAUSE I NEED A QUICK BREAK.
SO, UM, I DON'T WANT THE DERAIL THE MEETING THOUGH, SO KARA IF YOU CAN PLEASE TAKE OVER ON NUMBER 10.
UM, NOT EXPLAIN TO THAT WHEN YOU ACCEPT NO THAT WAS NOT EXPLAINED
WHY? WHY KARA GEORGE IS USED TO RUNNING FOR LIKE DAYS AND SO HE NEVER ACTUALLY NEEDS A BIO BREAK.
UM, ITEM 10, CHRISTINA DE LA CRUZ, COME ON DOWN.
MY FAVORITE TOPIC, I'M GONNA START THIS WITH, THIS IS THE EXACT WORDS, ARE WE REALLY ON 10 FROM A 2017 RED? EXACTLY THAT SPENT ABOUT THREE YEARS GETTING TO THIS LANGUAGE BETWEEN THE CITY COUNTY DEVELOPERS, ENGINEERS LIKE KNIFE TO THE EYEBALL FOR ALL OF US.
SO CHRISTINA IS THAT MOTION? YES.
NO, CHRISTINA, PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS WONDERFUL RED LANGUAGE TO US.
AS KARA HAD INDICATED THIS WAS A 2017 ACTUALLY IT'S, IT'S A 2017 DASH FIVE AND 2017 DASH SEVEN RED.
IN FACT WE TRIED TO GET IT IN 2015 CODE AND COULDN'T GET IT DONE FOR 2015 CODE.
SO THAT TELLS YOU HOW LONG THIS ONE HAD INVOLVEMENT.
THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN A CONTENTIOUS ON SECONDARY AXIS AS WE LOOK AT DEVELOPMENTS, I WOULD TELL YOU, UH, SO PRETTY MUCH WITH THIS CODE THERE WAS, IT WAS CLARIFYING BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME I GUESS GRADE ERROR INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THE CODE SAID BEFORE WITH REGARD TO WHEN DOES SECONDARY AXIS APPLY TO AND PRETTY MUCH WHAT WE ENDED UP CHANGING IS THAT RE REGARDLESS OF THE FRONTAGE THAT YOU HAD BECAUSE THERE WAS A WORD BEFORE THAT SAID AND AND THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE WERE SAYING, IF I HAVE MORE THAN 125 UNITS BUT I DON'T HAVE 400 FEET OF FRONTAGE, THAT MEANS IT DOESN'T APPLY TO YOU.
SO WE CHANGED THE WORD FROM AND TO OR THOSE HAVE A BIG DIFFERENCE AND AND OR IS WHAT I FOUND OUT
SO WE MADE SURE THAT THERE WAS CLARITY.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE FRONTAGE, ANYTHING OVER 125 UNITS MUST REQUIRE FOR SECONDARY ACCESS.
SO THAT WAS CLARIFYING 2000, THE R 2007, THEN THE 2017 POINT, I GUESS THAT 0 0 5 THEN CLARIFIES WHEN YOU HAVE LIMITATIONS OF BEING ABLE TO OBTAIN SECONDARY ACCESS, WHAT THIS IS ALLOWING YOU, YOU CAN DO AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE 500 UNITS WITH NO SECONDARY ACCESS OTHER THAN YOU CAN PROVIDE FOR A DEAD AND COLLECTOR OR ARTERIAL
[02:00:01]
ROAD AND THAT WOULD SUFFICE FOR SECONDARY ACCESS.IF YOU WANT TO EXCEED BEYOND 500 UNITS, THEN YOU MUST DO SHOW THROUGH A UH, TRAFFIC STUDY LOOKING AT LEVEL OF SERVICE AND THAT'S WHAT US IN TRAFFIC ENGINEERS TALK LEVEL OF SERVICE A THROUGH C.
SO PRETTY MUCH WHAT WE SAID, AS LONG AS YOU CAN PROVE THAT YOUR ONE ENTRY MEANING SECONDARY ACCESS, IT'S A DEAD AND COLLECT ARTERIAL HAS A LEVEL OF SERVICE C, THEN WE WILL ALLOW YOU TO GO OVER 500 UNITS AS LONG AS YOU CAN MAINTAIN A LEVEL OF SERVICE FEE, UH, AT THAT, YOU KNOW, AT THAT INTERSECTION.
SO THAT'S PRETTY MUCH WHAT THIS IS SAYING.
THAT THOUGH I, HOWEVER, BY DOING THAT YOU STILL HAVE TO SUBMIT A ADMINISTRATIVE EXCEPTION VARIANCE REQUEST IF YOU FALL WITHIN THIS PARTICULAR MEETING, SECONDARY ACCESS AND YOU HAVE LIMITATIONS.
SO I KIND OF PUT IT IN A NUTSHELL.
I KNOW I DIDN'T GO WORD FOR WORD, BUT IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS LIKE GUESS UH, KARA HAD INDICATED WE SPENT THREE YEARS, IT FELT LIKE 20 BUT UH, THAT'S WHAT THAT IS DOING.
THE ONLY THING I WILL ADD IS THAT EVERY SINGLE TIME WE BRING UP SECONDARY ACCESS, GEORGE CRINGES, SO UM, I IT'S APPROPRIATE HE'S NOT HERE TO HEAR THIS ITEM BUT SO THE, I WILL SAY THAT UM, THIS HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED SINCE 2017.
UH, IT HAS BEEN A TOOL THAT HAS BEEN USED OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
UH, CODIFYING IT IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR NEXT.
AND I'LL ADD THAT THIS WAS TRAFFIC FROM THE CITY AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FROM THE CITY.
THIS WAS FIRE MARSHAL FROM MARSHAL FROM THE CITY FIRE MARSHAL FROM BEAR COUNTY AND PUBLIC WORKS, YOU KNOW, PLATTING TEAM FROM THE COUNTY BECAUSE EVERYBODY WAS IMPLEMENTING THE CURRENT CODE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
SO WE REALLY SPENT A LOT OF TIME 'CAUSE FIRE IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT BETWEEN INSIDE AND OUTSIDE CITY.
AND THIS WAS WHAT WE FOUND THE BALANCE OF MEETING ALL OF THOSE NEEDS AND TRYING TO CLEAR SOME OF THE CONFUSION.
COUNTY HAD JUST A POLICY THEY'D BEEN IMPLEMENTING.
IT WAS THAT CONSISTENCY THAT WE WERE MAKING SURE 'CAUSE THERE'S AN INTERPRETATION THAT EVERYBODY WAS DOING IT DIFFERENTLY.
MALDONADO MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
SO MATT, UM, CLARIFYING REALLY QUICK.
UM, OVER HERE RACHEL, RACHEL, SORRY RACHEL HOLDER, UM, IT CURRENT, IT CURRENTLY SAYS TRANSPORTATION AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS.
WE MAY WANNA CHANGE THAT TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
RACHEL, DID YOU SO THAT CHRISTINA IS ACTUALLY THE ONE THAT REVIEWS IT.
UM,
YEAH,
SO QUESTION, UM, SO MANNA, UM, SO, SO ONE OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT 500 UNITS VERSUS 250 UNITS.
AND SO COULD YOU TELL ME WHAT THE DIFFERENCE WOULD BE OR WHAT THAT WOULD IMPLY IF THE NUMBER WAS CHANGED DOWN TO TWO 50 VERSUS 500? WELL I THINK WE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE TABLE.
THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS KIND OF WORKED WITH THE WHOLE GROUP.
OBVIOUSLY TWO 50 OR OBVIOUSLY WE PROVIDE A BETTER LEVEL OF SERVICE.
BUT THE GROUP IN THE THREE YEARS THAT WAS SPENT THE, I GUESS WITH ALL THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER WE SAID ABOUT 500 IS THAT THRESHOLD WHERE YOU SEE A LOT OF UNDEVELOPED OR C WOULD BE MAINTAINED.
SO GOING BACK TO TWO 50 OBVIOUSLY WOULD BE BETTER FROM A CITY'S PERSPECTIVE.
BUT I THINK THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS WORKED OUT AND THREE YEARS SPENT MEETING BOTH SIDES TO SAY HEY, WE CAN AGREE TO THIS AND THE TRAFFIC IN ENGINEER SAYING THAT THAT WOULD BRING US TO A LEVEL OF SERVICE C.
FOR MOST DEVELOPMENTS IT WAS TRIGGERED OFF A LEVEL OF SERVICE C BUT IT WAS ALSO TRIGGERED OFF OF PHASING OF HOW YOU PLA A DEVELOPMENT.
AND PART OF THE PROBLEM IS IN THE COUNTY AND THE E T J, THE COUNTY CAN'T REGULATE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
SO THERE'S NO WAY TO FILE A BUILDING PERMIT AND TRACK HOW MANY HOUSES.
SO THE PROBLEM WAS, YOU KNOW, 125 LOTS MIGHT BE YOUR FIRST PLA.
BY THE TIME YOU'RE FILING A SECOND AND YOU'RE STILL BUILDING YOUR FIRST UNIT IN ROADS, WELL NOW YOU CAN'T ACCESS IT WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, A SECOND ROAD.
THIS GAVE US THE TIMING FLEXIBILITY AND TO GET THOSE IN WHERE IN THE COUNTY THEY CAN'T TRACK HOW MANY ACTUAL HOUSES THEY HAVE TO GO SOLELY BY PLATTED LOTS.
SO THAT WAS REALLY WHY THAT TRIGGER SEEMS HIGHER.
IT GAVE US THAT WIGGLE ROOM BETWEEN 500 CARS, 500 LOTS AND THE TRAFFIC IMPACT AND THE TIMING OF TRACKING HOUSES VERSUS PLATTED LOTS IN THE COUNTY.
[02:05:01]
OKAY, SECOND, I HAVE A, I THINK I UNDERSTAND THIS.I'M NOT SURE BECAUSE THERE'S SOME MAJOR, I HAVE SOME MAJOR CONCERNS WITH THIS AND IT'S SOMETHING ELSE THAT THAT KIND OF GOES WITH IT.
IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS RIGHT, THIS PROVIDES AN ALTERNATIVE PROVIDING THAT SECONDARY ACCESS FOR OVER 125 LOTS.
IS THAT CORRECT? ON A TEMPORARY BASIS? ON A TEMPORARY BASIS AND HERE'S, I HAVE TWO MAJOR CONCERNS.
ONE, WE HAVE EXISTING ARTERIALS THAT EXIST ON THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN THAT HAVE NOT BEEN BUILT FOR 20, 30, 40 YEARS.
SO WE'RE BASICALLY ISOLATING SOME OF THESE SUBDIVISIONS FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS.
THE SECOND ASPECT OF THAT THAT I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT IS WE HAVE FAR TOO MANY SUBDIVISIONS RIGHT NOW THAT IN A HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD EVENT ARE ISOLATED AND THAT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION ALONG WITH THIS, I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THIS AS LONG AS IT'S NOT ISOLATED BY THE A HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD EVENT.
I THINK ONE OF THE, ONE OF THE ISSUES WE ALWAYS SEE JODI IS WE CAN'T CORRECT THE PAST, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO PREVENT IT FROM HAPPENING AGAIN.
WE HAD LOTS OF DISCUSSIONS OF WHERE AN ARTERIAL, YOU KNOW, THE IDEA WAS IF MY NEIGHBORHOOD HAS TWO ACCESS POINTS ONTO IT AND I CAN GET TRAFFIC ON EITHER SIDE OF A FOUR-LANE ROAD, THAT ROAD'S GONNA GIVE ME AND ALL THE FIRE MARSHAL COUNTY AND CITY SIDE ALL SET FROM A FIRE PROTECTION METHOD THAT WAS A SAFE ACCESS IN AND OUT.
THAT'S WHERE WE ALLOWED THE CONCEPT OF THAT DEAD END ROADWAY ON A PHASED DEAL.
MOST OF THOSE WHERE WE'VE GOT THE GAP IS BECAUSE THAT GAP IS OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF WHAT WAS ZONED BY ONE DEVELOPER.
AND UNFORTUNATELY THAT'S WHERE WE SEE COUNTY, IT'S USUALLY COUNTY'S GOTTA COME IN, WILDERNESS SOAKS.
HOW MANY YEARS DID IT TAKE US TO GET THAT PARTNERSHIP TO BUILD THE GAP THERE DRIVEN BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.
REALLY, I JUST, I JUST HAVE FAR TOO MANY PEOPLE THAT HAVE ASKED ME ABOUT THIS, NOT THIS SPECIFIC ONE, BUT IN GENERAL THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT NUMBER, NOT 125, BUT LIKE 50 OR 60 TO PROVIDE THAT SECOND EMERGENCY.
WELL, ALSO, ALSO WANTED TO NOTE TO YOUR FIRST POINT, BACK HERE IN THE CORNER, STEVEN STOKE IS SPEAKING.
UM, THERE IS A PROVISION IN THE CODE CURRENTLY THAT DOES NOT ALLOW, UH, YOU MUST HAVE UN FLOODED ACCESS TO THE SUBDIVISION.
SO THAT'S SOMETHING THEY'RE CHECKING NOW TO ELIMINATE WHAT HAD HAPPENED IN THE PAST.
I JUST KIND OF WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS TIED SOMEWHAT TO THAT.
AND, AND TO ADD ON TO THIS, THIS, REMEMBER THAT IT SAYS YOU MUST UTILIZE A DEAD END COLLECTOR ARTERIAL.
SO IF SOMEBODY WAS TO DO A SUBDIVISION, THEY SAY, HEY, I'M SIZED ENOUGH THAT I CAN DO A LOCAL WAY OR A LOCAL B, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO DO A LESSER TYPE OF ROADWAY VERSUS HERE IT CLEARLY SAYS IF YOU'RE UTILIZING THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, IT MUST BE AT LEAST A COLLECTOR OR ARTERIAL, WHICH IS 44 FEET OF PAVEMENT AND 48 VERSUS A LOCAL B'S ONLY 28.
I MEAN, A LOCAL A'S ONLY 28 VERSUS A LOCAL B'S ALSO 40.
SO WE'RE MAKING SURE FROM A STREET CAPACITY THAT IT'S IN THERE.
'CAUSE OBVIOUSLY ONE, ONE WAY IN AND OUT.
IF THAT'S ALL YOU WERE DOING AND YOU HAD A SMALLER STREET, THEN THAT'S WHEN WE START GETTING COMPLAINTS IS, I WANT A SIGNAL.
I CAN'T, IT TAKES FOREVER TO GET OUT.
SO WE MADE THEM DO THAT LARGER CAPACITY TYPE OF ROADWAY.
MADAM CHAIR, IF I MAY, THE ONLY THING I WILL ADD TO THAT, THANK YOU, CHRISTINA.
UM, IS THIS IS THE SECONDARY ACCESS REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT GOING AWAY.
BUT WHAT IS BEING ADDED WILL HELP CLARIFY ON THESE PHASE DEVELOPMENTS THAT THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A SECONDARY ACCESS, EVEN IF IT'S A TEMPORARY ACCESS, UNTIL THE FULL ACCESS IS AND THE THE FULL PERMANENT ACCESS IS BUILT.
UM, AND IT, IT, THIS IS UTILIZED TODAY.
WE HAVE UTILIZED IT OVER AND OVER TO ENSURE SAFETY AND WE COORDINATE WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE, UH, CITY OF SAN ANTONIO FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE IN AGREEMENT WITH EVERY, UH, APPLICATION THAT COMES THROUGH.
WAS THERE A, A MOTION ALREADY MADE? I BELIEVE THERE WAS A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? OKAY.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR, WERE YOU GOING TO MAKE A NOTE? UH, YES.
UH, PLEASE LET THE MINUTES REFLECT THAT, UM, MR. RAMIREZ HAS LEFT THE MEETING.
I THINK IT WAS TWO 30 WHEN HE LEFT AND HE WAS NOT A PART OF THIS LAST MOTION.
HE WAS NOT PART OF THE MOTION.
UM, SO THIS AMENDMENT IS A CLARIFICATION.
[02:10:01]
UPDATING FROM, UH, WHAT WAS THE PREVIOUS TRAFFIC CALMING, UH, EXAMPLES IN THE CODE AS OPTIONS FROM THE 1999, UH, R ING TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICES.AND THEY'RE UPDATING IT TO THE TRAFFIC CALMING E PRIMER, WHICH WAS UPDATED IN 2017.
UM, AND IF YOU SCROLL DOWN THROUGH THIS, WHAT IT DOES IS IT JUST UPDATES THE, UM, EXHIBITS AND IMAGES WITH THE DESCRIPTION OF THESE AS YOU GO THROUGH, UM, FOR CERTAIN OPTIONS.
AS FOR TRAFFIC CALMING WITHIN DEVELOPMENTS AS AN, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE, THEY'RE OPTIONAL AND CAN BE IMPLEMENTED IN AREAS WHERE WE DO HAVE CONFLICTS.
UM, AND IF YOU CONTINUE ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE BOTTOM, IT STRIKES OUT THE OLD ONES, WHICH YOU CAN SEE WHY THEY UPDATED THEM.
UM, THE IMAGES GOT A LITTLE BIT BETTER AND A LITTLE CLEARER.
SO, UM, I KNOW THIS ISN'T Y'ALL'S DEPARTMENT, BUT, AND OF COURSE I, ON THIS ONE PHONED MY FAVORITE TRAFFIC ENGINEER PHONED A FRIEND HERE WHO BASICALLY SAID, HEY, BY THE WAY, I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY'RE REFERENCING THIS STANDARD, BECAUSE IN 2020, THE CITY PUBLIC WORKS ADOPTED THEIR OWN ENTIRE TRAFFIC CALMING HANDBOOK.
IT'S GOT FAR MORE EXAMPLES THAN THIS.
IT'S ON THE BOOK, IT'S IMPLEMENTED BY PUBLIC WORKS.
AND TO ME THAT'S KIND OF LIKE THE DRAINAGE MANUAL.
WE'D RATHER HAVE THE MANUAL THAT'S EVOLVING WITH CURRENT NATIONAL STANDARDS AND CODES AND CRITERIA IN PLACE.
THEN AN OUTDATED CODE REFERENCING A 2017 STANDARD WHEN THE CITY HAS THEIR OWN 2020 STANDARD.
SO I, YOU KNOW, I'M OKAY WITH AMENDING, BUT I WOULD AMEND THIS TO SAY, YOU KNOW, REFERENCING THE COASTAL PUBLIC WORK HANDBOOK ADOPTED IN 2020.
I MEAN, IT'S GOT ASSOCIATED NEIGHBORHOOD, IT'S GOT A REQUEST PROCESS, PUBLIC WORKS.
I MEAN, LILY, I THINK, ADMINISTERS THAT WHOLE PROGRAM.
I THINK WHEN I WAS BACK WITH PUBLIC WORKS DOING THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I STARTED OFF THAT TRAFFIC COMMENT.
IT FINALLY TOOK MANY YEARS TO FINALLY GET COMPLETED.
BUT I WOULD TELL YOU CURRENTLY TODAY AT LEAST DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, WHEN PEOPLE, WE DO REFERENCE THEM TO THE TRAFFIC CALMING, WE'RE LIKE, HEY, WE SAID, LOOK, LOOK AT SOME OTHER ONES.
THESE ARE OTHER OPTIONS YOU CAN DO.
AND WE ARE REFERENCING THE PUBLIC WORKS.
THEY'RE TRAFFIC CALMING HANDBOOK THAT THEY PUT OUT.
SO PERSONALLY, I WOULD MOVE TO MODIFY THIS TO R RATHER THAN REFERENCING THE F H W A, I WOULD REFERENCE THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO TRAFFIC CALMING HANDBOOK, YOU KNOW, LATEST VERSION.
AND WHAT'S THE DATE OF THE 2020 MALDONADO? I HAD A COMMENT SINCE, GO AHEAD.
SINCE THE APPLICANT'S NOT HERE AND WE ARE HAVING A MEETING, IS IT THURSDAY THIS WEEK? COULD WE TABLE THIS AND SEND IT TO, WE ARE THE COMMITTEE AND THEY CAN TAKE IT UP AT THAT TIME AND DISCUSS IT.
AREN'T YOU ON THAT COMMITTEE? NO, I'M NOT.
GEORGE WAS SMART ENOUGH TO AGREE TO THAT ONE.
THAT'S I THINK, THE ONE ON ALL THE OTHER TRAFFIC AMENDMENTS.
I'M FINE WITH TABLING THIS ONE, BUT, YOU KNOW, OR I JUST VOTED DOWN OR AMEND IT.
'CAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE DOING SOMETHING THREE YEARS OLDER THAN A CURRENT CITY STANDARD.
AND, AND I THINK, BIANCA, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, YOU'RE RECOMMENDING TO PUSH THIS TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE? YES, MA'AM.
THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION FOR US TO SEND IT TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE THAT'S MEETING THIS THURSDAY, I BELIEVE.
UM, AND I, I BELIEVE THE DEPARTMENT'S GONNA BE ENGAGED AT THAT POINT, AND THEN IT COULD COME BACK.
AND IF WE COULD CARRY THESE CONCERNS BACK ABOUT THE CONCERN ABOUT IT CONFLICTING WITH THE 2020 MANUAL THAT IS CURRENTLY IN EXISTENCE, UH, AS OPPOSED TO JUST AMENDING IT OR KILLING IT BECAUSE, UM, THE APPLICANT'S NOT HERE.
SO I'D MAKE THAT A MOTION TO TABLE AND SEND IT TO SUBCOMMITTEE.
I THINK THE SECOND WAS FROM MR. CHERYL.
UM, SO MOTION FROM MS. MALDONADO SECOND FROM MR. CHERYL TO MOVE.
UM, ITEM NUMBER 11, AMENDMENT 24 DASH TWO TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE.
IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? BUT HEY, STAFF, CAN WE MAKE THE POINT TO THESE DE SORRY, CAN WE MAKE A POINT TO THESE DEPARTMENTS? AND YOU GOT AN ITEM, YOU SHOW UP, YOU SENT SOMEBODY FROM YOUR DEPARTMENT WHO CAN DEAL WITH US AND NOT PAWN IT ON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
FOR THE RECORD, I'M THE ONE THAT SENDS THE EMAIL AND ASK IF THEY CAN ATTEND.
THEY NEED TO HAVE SOMEONE ATTEND THEIR PLACE.
CAN THE MINUTES REFLECT THAT MR. BROWN VOTED NO? ON ITEM NUMBER 11, PLEASE.
UM, ITEM NUMBER 12 FIVE DASH TWO.
[02:15:12]
OKAY.UM, MY NAME IS JASMINE WELLING, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SUPERVISOR REPRESENTING THE PLAN REVIEW DIVISION.
THIS ITEM IS FOR CLARIFICATION.
THIS PROPOSAL'S TO AMEND SECTION 35 5 0 7.
WE'RE GONNA INCLUDE, UH, THE TEXT OR REMOVABLE PANELS TO ALLOW, UM, PERMITTED REMOVABLE PANELS AS AN OPTION.
UM, CURRENTLY THE TEXT JUST SAYS, UH, GATES.
SO THIS IS JUST CLARIFICATION.
UM, IT ALSO GIVES THE DIMENSIONS FOR SAID REMOVABLE PANELS.
AND THIS IS FOR RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL USE IN THE U D C, THIS ROBERT ANN
WHO IS THE SECOND FROM MR. CHERYL? RIGHT.
UH, ALL THOSE, OR IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE? ANY, UH, ALL RIGHT.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
DOUG MELNICK, CHIEF SUSTAINABILITY OFFICER.
UH, THIS WAS A, A ANOTHER PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION TRYING TO CREATE ALIGNMENT, UM, BETWEEN THE U D C AND THE SA CLIMATE READY PLAN.
UH, WITHIN THE STATEMENT OF PURPOSE, UH, UH, REGARDING LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION.
UM, SIMPLY ADDING A STATEMENT, UM, ACKNOWLEDGING THE LINK BETWEEN TREES, UM, CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION, UH, AS WELL AS, UM, THEIR ABILITY TO, TO STORE CARBON.
SO I THINK IT'S JUST A, A, A STARTING POINT ACKNOWLEDGING, UH, THE ROLE OF TREES IN, IN OUR EFFORTS.
MOTION FOR APPROVAL FROM MS. TACKETT.
I THINK MR. FULLERTON HAS A QUESTION OR COMMENT.
UH, IN THE CONTEXT OF, UH, ASSISTED MIGRATION, THE CLIMATE MIGRATION FOR SPECIES, UH, IT'S ONE THING TO POTENTIALLY FIND SPECIES THAT GROW NEAR THE COAST OR SOMEWHERE BETWEEN HERE AND THERE.
UH, HYPOTHETICALLY THIS MIGHT ALSO OPEN, UH, THE DOOR TO OTHER NON-NATIVE SPECIES THAT MIGHT ALSO BE AGGRESSIVE AND EVASIVE.
UH, HOW DOES THIS INTERACT WITH OTHER LISTS AND REQUIREMENTS? AND THAT'S, UM, WE'VE ALREADY HAD CONVERSATIONS, UM, WITH, UH, UM, CITY FORESTERS, AND THAT'S, THAT'S A CONCERN.
WE DON'T WANT TO, UM, DO SOMETHING THAT'S GONNA MAKE ANOTHER PROBLEM WORSE.
THIS IS REALLY AN, AN EVOLVING FIELD, AND THERE AREN'T A LOT OF ANSWERS AT THIS POINT.
SO I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT, UM, WE'RE THINKING AHEAD OF WHAT THOSE POSSIBLE ISSUES ARE, BUT WE JUST WANTED TO AT LEAST FLAG THE ROLE THAT TREES PLAY IN THIS CHALLENGE.
ANA? SO, QUESTION I HAVE, I KNOW THAT C P S PARTNERS A LOT WITH REGARDS TO, UH, WHAT TREES THEY CONSIDER TO BE GOOD TREES RIGHT NOW.
AND SO, UM, DOES THIS, DO WE REFERENCE ANYWHERE IN HERE ABOUT, HEY, GO LOOK AT THE CCP S SITE 'CAUSE THEY DO A GOOD JOB TELLING WHAT TREES TERMS THEIR, THEIR SHADE PROGRAM.
I THINK WE REFERENCE THE SHADE PROGRAM.
AND SO OUR, GO AHEAD, STEVEN, IS ABOUT TO ADDRESS.
CURRENTLY, YOU KNOW, THE, THE TREE PRESERVATION PLAN DOES REFERENCE APPENDIX SEA, WHICH HAS ALL THE TREES AND THE SHADE VALUES THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THEM.
AND THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT CURRENTLY DO THRIVE HERE IN, IN OUR ENVIRONMENT AND ARE THE BEST ONES THAT WE SEE TO BE PLANTED THAT WAS CREATED AND IMPLEMENTED AND MAINTAINED BY THE ARBORISTS.
ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY, AYE.
NUMBER 14, ITEM TWO DASH TWO FROM SOS.
DO WE HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM SOS PRESENT? NOW? YOU CAN, YOU COULD PROBABLY HEAR ME ANYWAYS IF I STOOD BACK, BUT, UH, MY NAME IS DANA NICHOLS.
I'M WITH THE SAN ANTONIO WATER SYSTEM CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT.
UM, THIS ITEM IS REALLY JUST TO REFERENCE, UH, SECTIONS THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN CHAPTER 34, ARTICLE FOUR OF THE CITY CODE THAT WAS ALSO NEGOTIATED OVER ABOUT A THREE YEAR PROCESS AND, UH, WITH THE BUILDER AND DEVELOPER COMMUNITY WHO WE LOVE.
AND, UM, UH, AND I WENT TO CITY COUNCIL IN 2005 AND BECAME, UH, UH, IN
[02:20:01]
2006.AND BASICALLY ALL THIS IS, IS A REFERENCE THAT SAYS, CHECK OUT CHAPTER 34, ARTICLE FOUR, UH, SECTIONS.
UH, SO THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY THAT USUALLY IS HANGING OUT IN CHAPTER 35 AND NOT IN 34, UH, KNOWS THAT THERE'S SOMETHING THERE.
IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE? ALL RIGHT.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
MS. NICHOLS, YOU STILL UP FOR ITEM TWO DASH THREE? AMEND.
UM, ITEM MEMBER 15, AMENDMENT TWO DASH THREE,
AND I'M SORRY, WHO WAS THE MOTION FROM MS. BROWN AND SECOND B? ANOTHER, ANOTHER DEPARTMENT.
ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE? OKAY.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
AND, UM, VERONICA, DID Y'ALL GET THE, THE LAST MOTION? YES, WE DID.
CATHERINE HERNANDEZ SPEAKING NOW.
'CAUSE MELISSA KEEPS SAYING, SAY YOUR NAME.
SO THIS ONE IS ACTUALLY, UM, UH, SPONSORED BY OUR BOARD OF COMMITTEE, OUR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
UH, SO THIS IS AN AMENDMENT, UH, TO, UH, THE BUFFER YARDS.
UM, COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WERE JUST SMALL CLARIFICATION ONES.
THIS FIRST ONE TO 300 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE HAS TO DO WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT.
SO ANYTHING LESS THAN TWO, 300 SQUARE FEET DOES NOT REQUIRE A BUILDING PERMIT.
SO THIS HELPS WITH, UH, THAT CLARIFICATION THERE.
UM, AND THEN, UM, THE LANGUAGE NOW THAT'S INTRODUCED ALLOWS THE BOARD TO ELIMINATE, UH, THE REQUIRED BUFFER YARD, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, AS YOU KNOW, A VARIANCE IS NOT AN ELIMINATION OF THE CODE REQUIREMENT.
AND SO THEY CAN REQUEST ALL THE WAY DOWN TO AN INCH BUFFER YARD, WHICH WE KNOW DOES NOT MAKE SENSE BECAUSE THAT WILL JUST BE WEEDS.
UM, SO THIS, THIS LANGUAGE GIVES THEM THE ABILITY TO WAIVE THAT REQUIREMENT.
THERE ARE OTHER SECTIONS OF THE CODE THAT ALLOWS WAIVERS, SUCH AS PARKING BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
UH, SO THIS WOULD BE IN LINE WITH THAT.
UM, AND THEN THE OTHER CLARIFICATION THAT WAS MADE WAS JUST CHANGING, UH, THE TEXT OF THE TABLE, UH, FOR REQUIRED BUFFER YARDS, UH, TO UTILIZE, UH, THE SAME, THE BASIC NAME THAT WE USE THROUGHOUT THE CODE, CHANGING IT FROM MAJOR AND MINOR TO PRIMARY AND SECONDARY.
AND THEN LASTLY, THIS ONE, UM, THIS CAME OUT OF THE DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD, UH, REGARDING, UH, LANDSCAPE BUFFER YARDS WHERE THEY ARE REQUIRED OR NOT REQUIRED.
SO WHERE THERE'S A COMMERCIAL OR OFFICE ZONE PROPERTY THAT'S LESS THAN AN ACRE, AND A, AND A BUT'S, AN INDUSTRIALLY ZONED PROPERTY, THE LANDSCAPE BUFFY YARD WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED, WHERE A COMMERCIAL OFFICE ZONE PROPERTY IS EQUAL TO A GREATER THAN AN THAN AN ACRE.
UM, THE, AND THE INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY ALREADY HAS INSTALLED THAT.
UM, THEN, UH, A TYPE A BUFFER YARD IS REQUIRED.
AND THEN THERE IS A NOTE, NOTE ASTERISK FOUR THAT RELATES TO THAT TABLE AS WELL.
UM, SO AGAIN, THIS WAS SPONSORED BY THE BOARD OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND, UM, UH, RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY THE ENTIRE BOARD MOVE TO APPROVE ANA SECOND BY MR. VASQUEZ.
MR. VASQUEZ, ANY, UH, COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE? ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
ITEM NUMBER 17, UH, TWO DASH ONE, AGAIN FROM SAN ANTONIO WATER SYSTEM.
TRACY LEHMAN WITH, UH, SAN ANTONIO WATER SYSTEM DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT.
WE ARE PROPOSING THIS REVISION TO 15, OR EXCUSE ME, FIVE, 10 C NUMBER THREE.
YES, WE'RE, UH, LOOKING AT ELIMINATE THAT.
AS WE ARE BUILDING PUMP STATIONS.
UH, WE ARE RUNNING INTO A CONFLICT WITH SECURITY AND SAFETY ISSUES, UH, THE STANDARDS THAT ARE SET FORTH BY A W W A AND A S C E FOR THAT.
AND SO THESE, UH, RESTRICTIONS WE HAVE TO HAVE, UH, VISIBLE.
WE CAN'T HAVE, UH, RESTRICTIONS ON THE VISION INSIDE THE PROPERTY.
SO THE GATES, OR THE, EXCUSE ME, THE FENCES CANNOT BE OPAQUE.
THEY MUST BE OPEN, UH, CHAIN LINK FENCES WITH BARBED WIRE.
UH, WE HAVE TO MAINTAIN THAT AS WELL AS THE, UH, LANDSCAPE BUFFER
[02:25:01]
IS CREATING ANOTHER ISSUE FOR US, UH, TO BLOCK THAT AND, UH, BLOCKING OUR VIEW INSIDE, BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE.SO IT HAS TO GO BOTH WAYS, UH, BASED ON THAT REQUIREMENT.
AND SO, UH, WE'RE REQUESTING THAT THAT SAWS, UH, BE EXEMPT FROM THAT, UH, STRIKING THE ENTIRETY OF NUMBER THREE, YOU, I, I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE VERY NEXT AMENDMENT UP FOR CONSIDERATION IS SUBMITTED FROM C P S, SPECIFICALLY STRIKING THE ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION ONLY.
UH, SO IF THIS CURRENT AMENDMENT WERE TO PASS, IT WOULD EFFECTIVELY RESOLVE THAT PORTION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT AS WELL.
YOU WERE AS NICE AS OFF WAS, I GUESS NOT.
UH, WE'VE, WHEN WE BUILD A SUBSTATION, OBVIOUSLY WE, WE HAVE TO GET A VARIANCE TO THIS ALL THE TIME.
UH, THE 30 FOOT BUFFER FOR US, THAT'S, THAT'S A LOT OF PROPERTY.
PLUS WE'RE PLANTING, UH, VEGETATION, WE'RE DOING LANDSCAPING, UH, IRRIGATION THAT THE CITY'S REQUIRING US TO DO.
SO AS YOU, AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, THAT GETS COSTLY, UH, FOR, FOR OUR, UH, BUDGET AND OUR CUSTOMERS, RIGHT? SO, UH, WE, WE DISCUSSED, WE, WE INTERNALLY, WE, WE WEREN'T TALKING OR CONSPIRING AT ALL, BUT IT JUST SO HAPPENED THAT, UH, THEY BOTH CAME UP.
SO YES, IF Y'ALL WOULD WAIVE THE, THE, UH, BUFFER REQUIREMENT FOR YOU EACH MEAN, I GUESS SAWS AND C P S THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD WORK FOR US AS WELL.
AND WE COULD JUST DISREGARD OUR NEXT, UH, OUR REQUEST.
I THINK UNFORTUNATELY, HOW IT WORKS FOR ONE, BUT DOESN'T WORK FOR THE OTHER IS, UM, CHALLENGING FOR ME.
I WILL TELL YOU, I WORKED IN A COUNCIL OFFICE, AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE BIGGEST COMPLAINTS WAS THE EYESORE OF WHAT THESE LOCATIONS LOOK LIKE, AND THAT THEY WANTED THEM SCREENED AND THEY WANTED THEM BUFFERED.
NOW, SAS IS CITING ONE CRITERIA, AND C P SS IS SAYING, WELL, WE JUST WANT LESS, BUT WE, WE WILL STILL SCREEN.
UH, I REALLY THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A BUFFER WHERE POSSIBLE.
UM, I UNDERSTAND YOUR SECURITY CONCERNS, BUT A LOT OF TIMES SAW IS COMING INTO EXISTING DENSE AREAS OF THE CITY IN THE URBAN CORE AND TRYING TO FIT A SUBSTATION.
AND THERE CAN BE HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL AT TIMES PUMP STATIONS, SAME WITH C P S, UH, WHERE YOU'RE HAVING TO PUT PANELS AND PUT PUBLIC ART ON IT TO CONCEAL IT.
AND SO I UNDERSTAND SOME OF THOSE ARE CHALLENGES WITH NOT ENOUGH LANDSCAPING, BUT ELIMINATING A BUFFER ALTOGETHER.
I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF, YOU HAVE SOMETHING, UH, WE'RE KIND OF THE OPPOSITE.
WE ARE REQUIRED TO PUT A SECURITY FENCE AROUND A SUBSTATION, OBVIOUSLY.
UH, OUR POLICY INTERNAL IS ANYTHING IN A HEAVY URBAN AREA.
WE'RE PUTTING A CONCRETE WALL ON THE STREET SIDE OF THE PROPERTY REGARDLESS.
UH, SO WE ARE JUST ASKING TO DO AWAY WITH THE BUFFER.
WE'RE PUTTING A HUGE CONCRETE WALL, NICE FACADE, PAINTED LOOKS NICE, AESTHETICALLY, UH, VERSUS THEN WE HAVE 10 FEET OF VEGETATION WE NEED TO PLANT, PLANT, MAINTAIN.
WE ALL KNOW THAT'S, THAT DOESN'T GO WELL.
UH, WE WOULD PREFER JUST TO PLANT GRASS IN THAT 10 OR WHATEVER BUFFER.
WE WOULD PREFER TO PLANT GRASS OR SOMETHING THAT'S NOT REQUIRING A MONTHLY, WEEKLY MAINTENANCE, UH, THAT WILL BECOME A ISOLATE AT SOME POINT.
UH, SO I GUESS THERE'S SOME MIDDLE GROUND HERE.
UH, AS FAR AS THE BUFFER GOES FOR C P S, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THIS IS MELISSA RAMIREZ.
THE, THE CONCERN IS THE LANDSCAPING WITH THE ABILITY FOR POTENTIAL HAZARDS TO BE HIDDEN IN THOSE AREAS, UM, AT OUT OF SIGHT.
UH, THIS IS A SECURITY CONCERN, NOT NECESSARILY AN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE.
UH, AND THE BUFFER, I DON'T THINK IS WHAT THE ISSUE IS.
IT'S THE ACTUAL LANDSCAPING THAT IS REQUIRED WITHIN THAT LANDSCAPING BUFFER.
SO THE C P S REQUIREMENT IS REDUCING THE BUFFER? WELL, YES, YOU'RE, YOU'RE GOING TO SMALLER PLANT SIZES AND REDUCING THE BUFFER YARD.
OUR, OUR NUMBER ONE, UH, CAUSE FOR OUTAGES IS TREES, RIGHT? SO THE CODE RIGHT NOW REQUIRES US TO PLANT X AMOUNT OF TREES IN THIS BUFFER SO TALL, AND WHICH THEY GET UP IN OUR LINES AND WE GOTTA CUT 'EM, MAINTAIN 'EM, AND THEN WE HAVE OUTAGES.
SO IT'S JUST A CONSTANT, UH, A BATTLE FOR US.
SO IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO HAVE A, A VEGETATION REQUIREMENT INSIDE THIS BUFFER FOR C P S ENERGY.
AND SECOND THING IS WE'RE ALWAYS DIGGING THAT AREA UP WITH, UH, WE GOT UNDERGROUND UTILITIES FROM THE STATION GOING INTO THE, THE RISER POLES OUT IN THE STREET.
SO WE'RE CONSTANTLY DIGGING THAT AREA UP.
SO WHATEVER WE PLANT THERE IS GONNA BE DUG UP MULTIPLE TIMES
[02:30:01]
OVER ITS LIFE.SO IT, IT, IT, IT DOESN'T REALLY BENEFIT TO HAVE VEGETATION REQUIREMENTS, UH, GRASS.
SURE, WE CAN PLANT GRASS, MAINTAIN THAT, UH, UH, ZERO ESCAPING OR ANY KIND OF, ANY KIND OF VEGETATION DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE, UH, FROM A, A, A ECONOMICAL STANDPOINT, I GUESS, FOR CUSTOMERS, FOR ANYONE, I GUESS.
SO I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF C P S HAVING THE REDUCTION, BUT NOT THE COMPLETE ELIMINATION, WHICH IS WHAT SAUCE IS PROPOSING, UNFORTUNATELY.
FINISH THIS FIRST AND THEN WE'LL GO TO MY, AND THEN IF YOU COULD CITE, IF YOU COULD CITE YOUR CODE AGAIN, YOU REFERENCED, UH, SAWS, YOU CITED, UH, THE INDUSTRY STANDARDS THAT YES.
REQUIRE YOU NOT TO HAVE AN OBSTRUCTION.
SO AFTER THANK 9 1 1 A W W A AND A S C A ADOPTED, UH, STA UH, YES.
TWO, UH, GUIDELINES FOR PHYSICAL SECURITY OF WATER UTILITIES AND GUIDELINES FOR THE PHYSICAL SECURITY OF WASTEWATER, STORMWATER UTILITIES IN 2011.
AND SINCE THOSE, THOSE SINCE THEN, THOSE GUIDELINES HAVE BEEN ADOPTED AS STANDARDS FOR THAT.
AND SO, UH, I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND C P S AND THEY HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A, A DIFFERENT ISSUE ON AIRS.
IF YOU'RE GONNA KNOCK OUT THE POWER, YOU KNOCK OUT THE POWER SOLVES.
WE HAVE A WATER QUALITY PROBLEM.
SO THESE DEVICES COULD BE HID IN THERE OR OTHER, AND THAT IS, UH, ONE THAT IS A CONSISTENT, CONSISTENT FEED.
IT WOULDN'T BE KNOCKING THE WATER OFF NECESSARILY.
IT COULD BE FEEDING SOMETHING INTO THE WATER.
AND SO THAT IS ANOTHER, UH, REASON WHY WE CAN'T GO WITH THE BUFFER.
I MEAN, NOT WITH THE BUFFER, BUT, UH, COMPLETELY BLOCKING OFF THE FENCE AND PUT UP A WALL AS C P S.
SO WE DO NEED THAT OPENING UP THERE.
SO IT CAN BE VISUALLY SEEN BOTH INSIDE AND OUT.
SO YOU ARE PROPOSING TO REMOVE THE PLANT, BUT YOU KEEP THE BUFFER? WE, WELL, WE ALSO CANNOT HAVE LARGE TREES.
UH, THAT DOES NOT HELP EITHER.
SO YEAH, WE CAN HANDLE GRASS AND SMALL BUSHES, UH, NOT UP NEXT TO THE FENCE, BUT, UH, IN THE PROXIMITY WOULD BE OUR PREFERENCE.
WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO DO A SCREENING SIMILAR TO C P SS AND HAVE YOUR SECURITY SYSTEM, UM, TAKE CARE OF THE INSIDE SECURITY? AGAIN, OUR REQUIREMENTS ARE REC, UH, BASED ON THOSE STANDARDS ARE THAT THEY ARE NOT OPEC THAT YOU CAN'T SEE THROUGH THE FENCE.
SO YOU'RE DEPENDING ON VISUAL SIDING BY THE PUBLIC TO YES.
A WW A WHAT? A W A AND A S C S A S C E.
BUT WHAT'S THE STANDARD? A W A, UH, IT, IT WAS, UH, RELEASE THE DOCUMENT GUIDELINES FOR PHYSICAL SECURITIES OF WATER UTILITIES AND GUIDELINES FOR PHYSICAL SECURITY OF WASTEWATER STORM WATER UTILITIES IN 2011.
SO, TRACY, DO SAWS NORMALLY COME IN AND GET A VARIANCE? YES, WE DO WORK.
DO YOU GET, COME, SO, AND HOW, I GUESS IF YOU CAN GIVE US SOME IDEA OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS, HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU COME THROUGH, AND HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU HAD TO GET A VARIANCE? AND HAS IT BEEN APPROVED EVERY TIME? UH, YES.
AND HOW, HOW OFTEN? LIKE WHAT, WHAT, WHAT'S THE VOLUME THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IN TERMS OF TRANSACTIONS? I WANNA SAY IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS, WE'VE ONLY HAD MAYBE ABOUT FIVE.
IT'S NOT A, IT'S NOT A HUGE AMOUNT BY ANY MEANS.
WE'RE NOT BUILDING NEW PUMP STATIONS DOWNTOWN.
WE MAY BE ADDING TO THE EXISTING ONES.
AND SO THAT TRIGGERS THIS REQUIREMENT, CORRECT? YES.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE RUNNING INTO.
UH, AND THEN OF COURSE, ANYTHING THAT'S BUILT WITH NEW DEVELOPMENT, RIGHT? UH, THE DEVELOPERS ARE TAKING PART IN THAT AND PARTICIPATING.
I, I KNOW IN, IN YEARS PAST WHEN WE'VE TAKEN ITEMS TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, THERE'S BEEN EXTENSIVE DISCUSSION OVER THE LIKELIHOOD THAT IF YOU PLANT A, A TYPE B 30 FOOT DEEP BUFFER YARD WITH X NUMBER OF CANOPY AND UNDERSTORY TREES FOR EVERY A HUNDRED FEET, OR THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO BE DUG UP.
I MEAN, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO BE REMOVED FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT FACILITY.
AND I THINK THAT IS IN LARGE PART, THE REASON THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAS CONSISTENTLY APPROVED THOSE OVER THE YEARS IS WHAT'S THE POINT OF PLANNING SOMETHING IF YOU KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DIG IT UP.
SORRY, VARIANCE IS THAT QUESTION ARE FOR LIKE A HUNDRED PERCENT NO BUFFER, RIGHT? YEAH.
THAT DOWN TO AN INCH, WHICH IS WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER WITH THE PREVIOUS AMENDMENT.
I SAY MOTION TO APPROVE BOTH OF THEM.
MAYBE WE TAKE, IF WE TAKE, IF WE APPROVE THEY'RE, WE APPROVE THE FIRST ONE, THEN WE, IT NEGATES THE SECOND ONE.
SO MOTION FOR APPROVAL FROM MR. BROWN.
I STILL WANNA KEEP WHAT C P S IS PROPOSING AND THE REDUCTION AS OPPOSED TO THE COMPLETE REMOVAL
[02:35:01]
OF, SO I WOULD NOT BE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS AMENDMENT BECAUSE AS IT'S WRITTEN, IT EXEMPTS BOTH OF THEM FROM THE BUFFER YARD.AND SO C P S HAS COME IN WITH A SECOND ONE THAT GIVES A LOWER RE OR REDUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF THE BUFFER.
SO YOU HAVE ONE THAT'S WILLING TO AT LEAST GIVE YOU SOME BUFFER.
AND YOU HAVE SA THAT SAYS, WE DON'T WANT ONE ALL TOGETHER.
BUT THEN, SO IS THERE A SECOND ON MR. BROWN'S MOTION? BUT THEN THEY ASK FOR A VARIANCE FROM IT.
SO TRA TRACY, YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS GROUP DOESN'T ALL OPERATE IN THE STANDARDS.
SO A W W A IS AMERICAN WATERWORKS ASSOCIATION.
IT'S THE NATIONAL STANDARDS ON ALL WATER PRODUCTION FACILITIES.
I MEAN, ON EVERY ASPECT OF THEM, FROM FACILITIES TO PIPELINES TO BACKFLOW, PREVENTERS, YOU NAME IT.
THEY WRITE THE STANDARDS FOR IT.
AND THE OTHER WAS A S C E OR SO BOTH NATIONAL STANDARDS LOOKED AT ACROSS, AND THERE WAS A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE SINCE NINE 11 IN CYBERSECURITY STANDARD REQUIREMENTS, YOU KNOW, SAFETY, SECURITY AT FACILITIES, BECAUSE THEY'RE CONSIDERED HIGH RISK.
I HAVE, TRACY KNOWS I'M NOT GONNA BE THE FIRST PERSON TO SAY, OH, PLEASE, LET'S MAKE IT EASY ON SAWS AND C P S.
BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT IN THIS CASE, THEY'RE BEING PUSHED BY THOSE BIGGER PICTURES THAT THIS IS, THEY'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO COME IN EVERY SINGLE TIME ASKED FOR THAT VARIANCE.
UM, AND IT'S BEEN APPROVED IN EVERY SINGLE CASE BECAUSE THEY'RE REALLY GOVERNED BY ANOTHER STANDARD BEYOND OUR CONTROL.
AND SO I THINK IT'S, DO WE WANNA KEEP MAKING IT GO TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS? I MEAN, PHILIP LIKES SPENDING AS MUCH TIME THERE AS POSSIBLE, BUT IF THIS IS JUST TRYING TO PUT IN PLACE SOMETHING THAT IS HAPPENING ON A REGULAR BASIS WITH NO, THERE IS NO NOT A CASE WHERE YOU'VE BEEN OPPOSED ON THIS AT ALL.
IS THERE, PHILLIP, I MEAN, YOU HEAR THESE AT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
WHAT, WHAT'S THE KIND OF DISCUSSION FOR Y'ALL? YEAH, I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT, IT COMES DOWN TO HEALTH AND SAFETY.
AND SO, SO THAT, THAT, THAT OVERRIDES REALLY ALL OF OUR DECISIONS, UM, AS WE GO THROUGH.
AND SO, SO THEREFORE, IT WOULD ALMOST BE A BLANKET APPROVAL ON A LOT OF THESE THINGS.
PLUS, WHEN YOU HAVE A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VARIANCE, IF I CAN ADD TO THAT, THAT IS APPROVED EVERY TIME, THEN YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT, IS THE CODE REQUIREMENT EVEN NECESSARY ANYMORE? RIGHT.
AND SO THE ONLY QUESTION I WOULD ASK WOULD BE, UM, YOU KNOW, SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A HARD CODE VERSUS, UM, DESIGN STANDARDS.
AND SO BACK IN, I'M, I'M ASSUMING THAT EACH OF THE DEPARTMENTS HAVE DESIGN STANDARD COMMITTEES WHERE THEY WOULD GO THROUGH AND SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, THIS PARTICULAR AREA, WE COULD PROBABLY DO SOME LANDSCAPING, YOU KNOW, ON OUR CHOOSING VERSUS, YOU KNOW, MANDATING THAT IT CAN'T BE DONE.
AND SO I WOULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, GENERALLY WE WANNA BE, YOU KNOW, THEY WANNA BE AESTHETIC IN, IN, IN NEIGHBORHOODS AND WHAT HAVE YOU.
AND, AND I THINK THEY COULD WORK WITH THE COMMUNITIES TO DO THAT AND STILL KEEP A SAFE SPACE.
BUT I DON'T THINK WE NEED THE MANDATE, YOU KNOW, THROUGH THIS, THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO COME THROUGH WITHOUT REQUIRING IT.
SO, 'CAUSE WE'RE GONNA APPROVE IT ANYWAYS.
SO MY MOTION WAS ONLY FOR ITEM 17, CORRECT? CORRECT.
ITEM NUMBER 17, THE, UM, REMOVAL COMPLETELY OF THE ENTIRE, UH, SUBSECTION THREE THERE, IS THERE A SECOND OR IS THERE MORE DISCUSSION? SECOND? I, I'M GONNA RECOMMEND A ROLL CALL.
OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. BROWN AND A SECOND FROM MR. MANNA.
IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE? YES, THIS IS DEBBIE REID.
I WAS JUST WONDERING ABOUT THE LOCATION OF THE FACILITIES, MS, BECAUSE UNFORTUNATELY A LOT OF THE CAN'T HEAR YOU.
IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT AV CAN WE TURN UP THE MICROPHONE PLEASE? SORRY, DEBBIE.
I'VE GOT IT JUST ABOUT AS CLOSE AS I CAN GET.
I WAS JUST WONDERING ABOUT THE LOCATION BECAUSE, UM, I KNOW BOTH OF YOU GET AN HAVE, UM, EXISTING FACILITIES THAT ARE RIGHT ON MAJOR AND MINOR ARTERIALS AND THAT SORT OF THING.
COULD THAT BE INCLUDED? IS THAT A REASONABLE REQUEST TO LOCATE ESPECIALLY NEW SUBDIVISIONS IN A LOCATION WHERE THEY'RE NOT SEEING SUCH A VISUAL, CONSTANT VISUAL? WELL, CERTAINLY WE HAVE, I MEAN, UH, THE IMPROVEMENTS WE'RE MAKING ARE TYPICALLY TO EXISTING.
WHAT COMES THROUGH THE BOARD, UH, UM, CHANGE IS FOR EXISTING MORE UPGRADING EXISTING FACILITIES.
UH, WE DON'T TYPICALLY BUILD A NEW BIG ONE, UH, EXCEPT FOR VISTA RIDGE, RIGHT? UH, WHEN THAT CAME IN, THAT WAS A NEW LARGE PLANT.
AND THEN THE OTHER ONES ARE WHENEVER WE'RE EXPANDING OUT IN OUR SYSTEM AND WE WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER, UH, MOST OF THE TIME THE DEVELOPER IS WORKING WITH US AND DEDICATING THE LAND FOR THOSE SITES.
DEBBIE, I'LL SAY IN ALL OF THOSE CASES, THE ACCESS TO THE SITE IS AN EXTENSIVE DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE ENGINEER AND SAWS THERE.
I MEAN, WE'RE HAVING TO BUILD A DRIVABLE ROAD.
I MEAN, I CAN THINK OF VERY FEW TANK SITES OR PUMP STATIONS IN THE LAST FEW YEARS THAT AREN'T SITTING ON A COLLECTOR ARTERIAL BECAUSE OF ACCESS.
[02:40:01]
FEW THAT DON'T STILL GET A PUBLIC ACCESS ROAD, AND THEY'RE AT THE BACK OF LOTS.I MEAN, THAT'S THE CANYONS TANK SITE.
I MEAN, SO THAT'S A HUGE DISCUSSION ON EVERY SINGLE ONE THAT PLAYS IN IS ACCESS AND TRYING TO PUT THEM ON MAJOR ROADWAYS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE OLDER FACILITIES ARE.
BUT NOW THEY'RE NOT TRYING TO PUT THEM ON MAJOR ROADWAYS.
SO THEY'RE A BIGGER PHYSICAL VISUAL.
IT'S A BIGGER PHYSICAL UGLY ICK, BUT IT'S A LESS IMPACT TO HOMES.
SO THERE'S FEWER RESIDENTS THAT BACK UP TO IT WHEN IT'S ON AN ARTERIAL THAN WHEN IT'S OFF OF A RESIDENTIAL STREET.
AND THAT WAY IT ALSO MINIMIZES HOW MANY, YOU KNOW, PUMPER TRUCKS YOU SEND OR TRUCKS FOR C P SS OR SAW AS YOU SEND THROUGH A NEIGHBORHOOD, THEY'RE ON A MAJOR ROADWAY.
SO THAT'S BEEN THE SHIFT OF TRYING TO MINIMIZE INCITING THE IMPACT ON NEIGHBORHOODS.
THEY'RE NOT PRETTY ON ROADS, BUT THEN THEY'RE NOT BACKING UP RIGHT NEXT TO LOOKING ON SOMEONE'S HOUSE TO THE SAME EXTENT EITHER.
BUT THEY DO A RESIDENTIAL, UM, YARD WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO SCREEN FOR THEMSELVES, WHICH IS DIFFERENT HERE.
MY LAST COMMENT IS THAT IN THE URBAN CORE, I MEAN, I SEE A HUGE SUBSTATION AND YOU MENTIONED NEW PANELS AND IT'S BEEN UPGRADED MULTIPLE TIMES AND THERE'S NO NEW PANELS ON IT.
WEST HILDERBRAND AND WEST AVENUE.
UM, I, MY, THAT IS MY CONCERN IS THAT WHEN THESE SITES ARE EXPANDED OR NEW PUMP STATIONS HAVE TO BE PUT IN, IN THE URBAN CORE BECAUSE THERE IS NOT AMPLE ANY KIND OF SCREENING.
THEY'RE ALL CHAIN LINK, YOU KNOW, EIGHT FEET TALL WITH RAZOR WIRE ON THE TOP.
SO ELIMINATING THIS ALL TOGETHER, I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SECURITY, BUT MANY OF THESE THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT ARE HIGHLY VISIBLE.
SO FOR THAT REASON, I WON'T SUPPORT IT.
OKAY, WE'RE GONNA TAKE A VOTE.
MR. BROWN
WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL FOR ITEM 17.
CAN WE GET A ROLL CALL VOTE STAFF.
OKAY, SO WITH 17 PASSING, UM, UH, SCOTT, DO YOU WISH TO WITHDRAW NUMBER 18? YES.
SO NUMBER 18 HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN.
DO WE NEED A MOTION FOR THAT STAFF OR IS THAT NO.
WE'LL MAKE NOTE OF THAT ON OUR MASTER LIST APPLICANT.
NOW ONTO NUMBER 19, ITEM FIVE DASH THREE.
QUESTION, IF THE PREVIOUS ONE WAS NOT PASSED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, SO THE C P SS PROVISION IS NOT GONNA BE PRESENTED.
SO THE APPLICANT WITHDREW THEIR AMENDMENT NUMBER 18 BECAUSE OF THE PASSAGE FOR, OR RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF 17.
BUT IF IT'S NOT PASSED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, SO IF IT'S NOT SO, 'CAUSE THE APPLICANT WITHDREW THE AMENDMENT, IT'S NOT UP FOR TACK TO CONSIDER AND WOULD NOT BE FORWARDED BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
I I THINK THAT THE COMMISSIONER'S ASKING ABOUT IS IF, IF ITEM NUMBER 17 DOES NOT PASS AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THEN I, WITH ITEM NUMBER 18, BEING WITHDRAWN.
SO IF IT'S DEAD IN THE WATER, IF ITEM NUMBER 17 IS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IT WOULD STILL CARRY ON TO CITY COUNCIL.
PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO KILL AN AMENDMENT LIKE TAC.
THEY WOULD ONLY MAKE A RECOMMENDATION.
WELL, CAN I, CAN YOU GO TO THE MIC? GO THROUGH
[02:45:12]
MADAM CHAIR.WE'RE, WE'RE READY TO MOVE ON.
JASMINE WELLING PLANS EXAMINER, SUPERVISOR, D S D.
THIS IS CLARIFICATION FOR U D C SECTION 35 5 14.
UH, A THREE CLARIFICATION TO ADD TO THE TEXT, COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL.
UM, CLARIFYING THE USE OF FREESTANDING WALLS AS, UH, PERMITTED AS VISUAL AND NOISE BARRIERS NOT CONSIDERED AS FENCING TEXTS.
ALSO ADDED TO THIS SECTION, CLARIFYING FREESTANDING WALLS ENCLOSING A RESIDENTIAL COURTYARD CONSIDERED PART OF THE HOME FLOOR AREA.
ANY, UH, QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE? OKAY.
CAN YOU GET A MOTION? MOTION TO APPROVE MALDONADO? SECOND.
ITEM NUMBER 20, UH, IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE, UH, 35 5 14, THE FENCES SECTION.
UH, I MENTIONED, UH, I THINK TWO MEETINGS AGO THAT BACK IN 2015, WE MADE A NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS TO THE FENCING REGULATIONS.
UH, WE WERE PRETTY HAPPY WITH THOSE AMENDMENTS.
IT ENABLED A HOMEOWNER TO HAVE UP TO AN EIGHT FOOT TALL FENCE, UH, IN THEIR REAR YARD IF THEY WERE NEXT TO AN ALLEY OR IF THEY ABUTTED A COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY.
AND ABOUT THREE WEEKS AFTER THOSE AMENDMENTS WENT INTO EFFECT, WE HAD SOMEONE WALK IN WITH AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE BECAUSE THEY BACKED UP TO A RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY.
AND WE THOUGHT, WOW, THAT WOULD'VE BEEN A GOOD ONE TO INCLUDE IN 2015
UH, SO WE ARE PUTTING IT FORWARD HERE IN THIS CYCLE, UH, AGAIN, FOR, FOR THOSE PROPERTIES, IF YOU HAVE A RAILROAD RIGHT OF AWAY, UH, IF YOU LOOK AT A COUPLE OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS NORTH OF DOWNTOWN BEACON HILL, WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OF VARIANCES OVER THE YEARS.
UH, AGAIN, JUST PROVIDING THAT BENEFIT BY WRIGHT RATHER THAN REQUIRING A FOUR TO $600 APPLICATION AND, AND A MONTH OF TIME.
THAT SHOULD BE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
AND HE'S HELPING ME WITH THESE, BECAUSE HE ACTUALLY WROTE THIS ONE FOR ME.
SO LOGAN, UH, YOU SAVED THE APPLICANT'S FEES WITH THIS PROVISIONS, CORRECT? YEAH.
FOR THOSE FOLKS THAT WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AN EIGHT FOOT TALL OFFENSE, THEY WOULD, IF, SHOULD CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THIS, THEY COME IN $26 50 CENTS, I THINK, FOR A FENCE PERMIT AND THEY BILLED IT THAT WEEKEND.
SO I HAVE A MOTION BY, UH, MS. MALDONADO, UH, SECOND BY MR. VASQUEZ.
ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
THIS ONE WAS ACTUALLY SPONSORED BY OUR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, UH, RELATED TO, UM, ALLOWANCES FOR, UH, FENCES, UM, A HIGHER FENCE AT EIGHT FEET.
UH, THEY WANTED TO ADD LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE WHENEVER THERE IS, UH, AN A BELOW GROUND POOL OR AN ABOVE GROUND POOL IN THE REAR SIDE YARD.
UM, AND BECAUSE PRETTY MUCH A LOT OF THE ONES THAT WE'RE GETTING FOR VARIANCES FOR, FOR THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE ARE, ARE BEING APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, PROVIDE SECURITY, SAFETY AND PRIVACY MOVE FOR APPROVAL MOTION BY MS. TACKETT.
QUESTION? UM, I WANNA UNDERSTAND THIS 'CAUSE IT, I KNOW SOME PEOPLE IT AFFECTS.
SO IF A PERSON IS NEXT TO A COMMUNITY POOL, THEY CAN PUT UP AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE YES.
JUST BY GETTING THEIR FIR FENCE PERMIT? YES.
AND IF THEY'RE NEXT TO SOMEBODY WHO OWN HAS A POOL, ALSO THEY GET TO PUT UP AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE WITH THIS CHANGE.
BUT SO IF IT'S A COMMUNITY POOL OR INDIVIDUAL POOL, THEY CAN DO GO TO AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE.
SO WE COULD HAVE STAIR STEP FENCES ALONG THE BACK OF COMMUNITY AREAS? WE MIGHT, YES.
THERE WAS A MOTION BY MS. TACKETT.
UM, MR. FULLERTON, QUICK POINT OF, UH, INFORMATION.
HAS THE CITY SEEN MUCH OF AN UPTICK IN PEOPLE PUTTING, NOT NECESSARILY POOLS, BUT VERY LARGE CISTERNS IN THEIR BACKYARDS? AND IF SO, SHOULD WE INCLUDE THAT? IN THIS? I, IN ALL THE TIME THAT I'VE BEEN WITH THE CITY, I HAVE ONLY
[02:50:01]
EVER BEEN INVOLVED WITH ONE PROPERTY THAT WAS INSTALLING CISTERNS.WE'VE SEEN, UH, WITH C OVID 19 SPECIFICALLY, THERE WAS A RAPID INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF PROPERTIES PUTTING IN SWIMMING POOLS.
WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
UM, THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? UH, MOTION PASSES.
JASMINE WELLING WITH D S D PLAN REVIEW AGAIN, UH, FIVE DASH FOUR.
UH, CURRENT LANGUAGE IN THE U D C, UM, STATES THAT YOU, UH, DEVELOPER REQUIRES NEW FENCING WHERE RESIDENTIAL IS ADJACENT TO A NON-RESIDENTIAL USE OF WHETHER THE FENCE IS EXISTING OR NOT.
UM, PROPOSED LANGUAGE OFFERS AN EXCEPTION AS AN OPTION FOR NOW THE DEVELOPER, IF A, UH, WRITTEN AGREEMENT, UH, ALONG THAT PROPERTY BOUNDARY, UM, BY ALL OWNERS, UH, TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY FENCE, THIS LANGUAGE NOW IS LISTED AS AN OPTION, THE EXCEPTION.
WHO'S PAYING FOR THE FENCES? THE RESIDENTIAL OR THE COMMERCIAL? ON THE OTHER SIDE, IT WOULD BE THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPER TO MAIN TO MAINTAIN AND OR THE COMMERCIAL TO BUILD.
SO MANY TIMES WE HAVE, UH, WHERE WE HAVE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS.
AS WE KNOW, RESIDENTIAL HOMES ARE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A FENCE.
IT'S JUST ONE OF THOSE THAT IS A GREAT NICE THING TO HAVE.
UH, WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT OUR CODE REQUIRES THAT WHEN YOU HAVE A NON-RESIDENTIAL USE, ABUTTING A RESIDENTIAL USE, YOU'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE A SOLID SCREEN SIX FOOT FENCE.
WHAT THEN OCCURS IS NOW YOU HAVE EITHER THESE FENCES ABUTTING EACH OTHER OR FENCES WITH DEAD SPACE IN BETWEEN, UH, WHICH THEN ARE HARD TO MAINTAIN.
SO WHAT WE'VE DONE OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS IS THAT BECAUSE FENCE IS REQUIRED FOR THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, THEY BECOME THE, THE OWNERS, IF YOU WILL, OF THAT TO MAINTAIN THAT FENCE BECAUSE THE RESIDENTIAL OWNER ISN'T REQUIRED TO HAVE ONE, IT'S JUST ONE THAT CAME WITH THE HOME.
UH, SO THIS AMENDMENT HELPS, UH, SORT OF SOLIDIFY THE PROCESS THAT WE'VE BEEN DOING.
IS THIS IMPACTED AT ALL BY OUR PREVIOUS APPROVAL OF THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE? DOES THIS LANGUAGE NEED TO BE CHANGED TO JUST A COMPLIANT OFFENSE? WE, I SUPPOSE YOU COULD PUT WHERE A COMPLIANT FENCE, WELL, REMEMBER THE REQUIREMENT IS ONLY FOR SIX.
THE EIGHT FOOT IS AN ALLOWANCE UP TO EIGHT.
BUT THIS, THE PREVIOUS AMENDMENT ALLOWS PEOPLE TO DO UP TO EIGHT.
SO SIX FOOT IS THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT.
A COMPLIANT BECAUSE IF THERE'S AN EXISTING EIGHT, THIS SAYS AN EXISTING SIX SIX OR GREATER SIX OR GREATER, OR JUST A COMPLIANT FENCE.
SO, SO IT UM, IT IS A LITTLE BIT ODD TO STATE, UM, SUBMIT A SIGNED AGREEMENT FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER AND PROPERTIES CHANGE HANDS REGULARLY.
AND SO, SO AS A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS COMES IN, DO YOU HAVE TO GO BACK AND EVERY TIME THAT THE A PARTICULAR RESIDENTIAL CHANGES PROPERTY OR CHANGES OWNER, YOU HAVE TO GO BACK AND ASK FOR ANOTHER SIGNING? NO, IT'LL, IT'S ONLY REQUIRED AT THE TIME OF THE PERMIT.
IF THE FENCE NEEDS TO BE MAINTAINED, THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNER WILL MAINTAIN THAT FENCE.
THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNER HAS TO PUT THAT FENCE BACK UP TO THE BENEFIT OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOMEOWNER.
'CAUSE THEN THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING.
SO ESSENTIALLY THE BUSINESS IS BECOMING THE OWNER OF THE FENCE.
AND SO, SO THE PROP, THE PERSON PURCHASING THE PROPERTY HAS TO AGREE TO THAT, THAT THEY'RE OKAY WITH, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY ELSE TAKING NEAR THEIR FENCE.
THE PERSON WHO OWNS IT, WHERE THE, WHERE AT THE TIME THAT THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNER IS GOING TO PERMIT THEIR DEVELOPMENT.
BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, YES.
A SUBSEQUENT OWNER WOULD MAINTAIN THE LI THE, THE RESPONSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN THAT FENCE.
SUBSEQUENT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNER.
UH, ONE I'M ASSUMING COMMERCIAL DOES NOT INCLUDE APARTMENTS.
UH, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES AND IN SECOND, UH, WHAT IF THERE'S ALREADY AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL FENCE THERE? THAT'S WHAT THIS CODE ALLOWS FOR, IS THAT THEY ENTER INTO THAT AGREEMENT AND THEY MAINTAIN
[02:55:01]
THAT EXISTING FENCE.SO IT'S BEEN, YOU DON'T CREATE DOUBLE FENCES OR DEAD FENCE LAND.
SO IT'S GONNA BE INCUMBENT UPON THE HOMEOWNER TO GET THAT, GET THAT UH, AGREEMENT DONE IN ORDER FOR THE COMMERCIAL NOW TO CONTINUE MAINTENANCE OF THAT FENCE? NO, IT'S INCUMBENT UPON THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNER TO THE NON-RESIDENT TO EITHER SECURE THAT NON RESIDE PAPERWORK RESIDE OR BUILD FENCE.
SO THEY HAVE TO INITIATE THAT WITH THE HOMEOWNER? YES.
AND THEN MAINTAIN FENCE IN PERPETUITY THERE THEREAFTER? YES.
AND I MEAN WE'RE, WHERE WE'RE A LOT MORE LIKELY TO SEE THIS IS IF YOU HAVE A, YOU KNOW, A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY THAT BUTTS UP AGAINST ONE HOUSE, MAYBE TWO, YOU KNOW, IF, IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT A LARGE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT THAT BACKED UP TO 80 DIFFERENT HOUSES, THAT'S 80 DIFFERENT PROPERTY OWNERS YOU HAVE TO APPROACH AND GET THEIR BLESSING TO ENTER INTO THIS.
SO NON NON-RESIDENTIAL OR MULTIFAMILY.
HOMEOWNERS, WHICH RIGHT NEXT TO THAT SITUATION, IS THERE ANY, ANY QUESTIONS GARCIA? I MOVE FOR APPROVAL A SECOND.
I, I HAD A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
SO I, I JUST, I'M, I'M A LITTLE, UM, I GUESS FUZZY ON THE LANGUAGE AND ALL ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED IF IN THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY ADJACENT CAN BE MISCONSTRUED.
UM, I I, DOES IT NEED TO BE MORE CLEAR TO SAY, YOU KNOW, MAYBE, UM, PROPERTY OWNERS WITH WHOM THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ABUTS OR SOMETHING? YEAH, SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT.
I JUST, I DON'T, I DON'T WANT THERE TO BE HAVE, HAVE, BE CAREFUL WITH THE WORD ABUTTING VERSUS ADJACENT.
SO THE, SO THE FENCE REQUIREMENT IS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT ADJACENT, WHICH MEANS THAT A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNER, IF THEY'RE ABU, IF THEY ARE A BUDDING AN EASEMENT, WHICH IS IN BETWEEN THAT AND THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT IS ADJACENT.
SO THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A FENCE.
SO THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU INCLUDE THE WORD ADJACENT BECAUSE THEN, OKAY.
SO THAT'S, THERE'S, SO I I, ALTHOUGH I AM NOT CLEAR WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY AND ADJACENT, THERE'S NO AMBIGUITY WITH THAT WORD.
SO BOTH, BOTH ARE, WE HAVE, UH, THE DEFINITION OF ADJACENT IS, UH, TWO PROPERTIES.
LOTS OR PARCELS ARE ADJACENT WHERE THEY, BUT OR WERE, THEY ARE NEARBY AND SEPARATED BY A DISSIMILAR TYPE OF MANMADE GEOLOGIC FEATURE, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO A ROADWAY RIGHT AWAY, RAILROAD, ET CETERA GOES ON FROM THERE.
SO MAYBE WHAT WE DO IS WE SAY, MAY SUBMIT A SIGNED AGREEMENT FROM ALL ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY FENCE.
WELL, THE, THE DEFINITION OF A BUT IS HAVING PROPERTY LINES IN COMMON.
SO THE FENCING REQUIREMENT IS FOR ADJACENT, INCLUDING ADJACENT ADAM BUDDING.
SO YOU TAKE OUT FROM, YOU TAKE THE FIRST THE PROPERTY OWNER OFF, OFF OF THAT, THEN YOU WON'T HAVE THE REPEATING THE PROPERTY OWNER OVER.
SO IT'S JUST FROM ALL ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS.
MR. CHERYL, I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION IN LOOKING AT THIS.
THIS WOULD BE GRANDFATHERED FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS, INCORRECT STAFF.
I'M SORRY, CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? THIS WOULD BE GRANDFATHERED FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS AS USUAL.
YEAH, I MEAN IF, IF, IF THIS WERE APPROVED WE WOULD NOT REQUIRE COMMERCIAL OR MULTI-FAMILY PROPERTIES TO ENGAGE WITH THEIR NEIGHBOR TO DETERMINE IF THEY WANTED TO ENTER INTO A, THAT THAT IS AN OPTIONAL THING FOR THEM TO PURSUE IN THE FUTURE.
SO REMEMBER THEY'VE ALREADY, THEY'RE ALREADY REQUIRED TO HAVE A FENCE.
SO IF THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN PULLING THOSE PERMITS AND CONSTRUCTING THEM, THEY'RE ALREADY HAVE THAT FENCE TODAY.
THIS IS ONLY TRIGGERED WHEN THEY'RE, THEY'RE PULLING A PERMIT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NON-RESIDENTIAL USE FOR DEVELOP.
BUT MY, MY QUESTION IS, YOU HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD NEXT TO AN APARTMENT EXISTING BUILT BEFORE THEY WENT INTO THE CITY.
DOES THIS APPLY? DOES APARTMENT HAVE A FENCE IN THAT SCENARIO? THE, THE WORD MAY HERE IS CRITICAL.
DOES THE DEPARTMENT HAVE A FENCE ALREADY IN THAT SCENARIO? I DO.
UH, THEY HAVE A CHAIN LINK FENCE.
IF, IF THIS WERE APPROVED, THEY COULD PURSUE THIS AS AN OPTION, THEY WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO.
SO THIS IS TO ALLOW THEM TO NOT HAVE DOUBLE FENCES.
THAT'S ALL THIS DOES IS NON DOUBLE FENCES.
IF PROPERTY OWNER, THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNER IS HAPPY WITH JUST KEEPING THE FENCE AS IS THIS COMMERCIAL PROPERTY CAN TAKE OVER MAINTENANCE OF IT, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE TO, PROPERTY OWNER DOESN'T HAVE TO AGREE TO IT AND THEY CAN BILL, THIS IS JUST AN OPTION.
[03:00:01]
OF THOSE DOUBLE FENCES, BUT BECAUSE I HAVE, I HAVE FOUGHT ONE BEFORE, BUT THIS AMENDMENT DOESN'T IMPACT THAT OTHER THAN IT MIGHT AVOID IT, BUT IT DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T STOP IT.SO I THINK WE WERE GOING TO STRIKE FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER AND JUST PUT FROM ALL ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS.
SO WE'RE GONNA STRIKE TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY FENCE.
THE WORD JUST THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE PROPERTY OWNER.
AND SO IT WOULD BE REQUIRED, THEY COULD SIGN THE AGREEMENT FROM ALL ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS.
AND SO IS THAT AMENDMENT, UM, AGREEABLE TO MR. GARCIA AND MR. VASQUEZ? YES.
ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE? I DO HAVE A QUESTION.
THE WAY I'M READING IT IS THAT THEY MUST GET APPROVAL FROM ALL ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS IN ORDER TO MAKE IT WORK.
AND ARE WE CH REMOVING THE SIX FOOT LANGUAGE TO BE JUST COMPLIANT? SORRY, ARE WE USING THE, REMOVING THE SIX FOOT AND JUST KEEPING EXISTING COMPLIANT FENCE OR EIGHT FEET? RIGHT.
IS THAT ADDITIONAL CHANGE STILL ACCEPTABLE BY THE, BY MR. GARCIA? MR. VASQUEZ? YES.
YOU HAVE A MOTION FOR THIS AMENDMENT AS, UH, AMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR PLANNING COMMISSION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMISSION.
UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.
UH, SO THIS NEXT AMENDMENT IS INTENDED TO, UH, CLEAR UP KIND OF AN ISSUE WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF TIMES OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS.
SO WE HAVE A SECTION OF THE CODE CALLED BUILDING ON OR NEAR COMMON PROPERTY LINE.
AND THE SPECIFICALLY, IT'S THE OR NEAR, UH, SECTION THAT DOESN'T REALLY HAVE MAKE A WHOLE LOT OF SENSE 'CAUSE EVERYTHING IN THAT SECTION TALKS ABOUT BUILDING OVER IT.
UH, SO NUMBER ONE, WE'RE GETTING RID OF THE OR NEAR BECAUSE THE, THE SECTION DOESN'T REALLY SPEAK TO OR NEAR.
IF YOU LOOK IN SUBSECTION A, UH, WE HAVE A SECTION OF CODE THAT IS OFTENTIMES UTILIZED IN OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS NEAR DOWNTOWN WHERE IT WAS VERY COMMONPLACE, UH, LATE 18 HUNDREDS, VERY EARLY 19 HUNDREDS TO LAY OUT A PLAT.
UH, EVEN THOUGH THEY WEREN'T TECHNICALLY RECOGNIZED AS PLATS UNTIL 1927, WHERE YOU WOULD A PLAT A WHOLE BUNCH OF 25 FOOT WIDE LOTS.
AND YOU MIGHT HAVE ONE PERSON THAT COMES IN BUYS UP ONE LOT AND BUILDS A, A SMALL BUNGALOW ON IT.
YOU MIGHT HAVE THE NEIGHBOR COME IN AND BUY FOUR LOTS AND THEY BUILD A MANSION ACROSS SEVERAL PROPERTY LINES.
SO THIS SECTION OF CODE IS INTENDED TO ALLOW PEOPLE, AS IT SAYS, A SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE, IN ADDITION, AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, GO TO TOWN, BUILD OVER THOSE COMMON LOT LINES AS LONG AS YOU OWN THEM.
BUT IT EXCLUDES AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT FROM BEING ABLE TO DO THAT.
SO WHAT WE'VE HAD TO DO, UH, IS WE'VE HAD PEOPLE COME IN, THEY OWN LOTS 20 AND 21, THEIR HOUSE IS BUILT ACROSS LOT 20 AND 21.
THEY WANT TO PUT A GRANNY FLAT IN THE BACKYARD ACROSS 20 OR 21.
AND WE HAVE TO TELL THEM THAT'S GOTTA BE 20 OR 21, TAKE A PICK BECAUSE THE CODE SAYS EXCLUDING ACCESSORY DWELLINGS.
SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO OPEN UP THE SAME FLEXIBILITY FOR AN A D U THAT IS AFFORDED TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
MALDONADO COMMENT, UH, THERE'S SOME CLEANUP THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN IN NUMBER SIX BELOW WHERE YOU'RE ADDING THE ADDITIONAL ZONING DISTRICTS AT THE VERY, VERY BOTTOM.
UM, IT REFERENCES THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
WHERE? ITEM SIX AT THE VERY BOTTOM.
SCROLL ALL THE WAY TO THE BOTTOM.
ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON ITEM FIVE DASH 27? OKAY, CAN WE GET A MOTION? ROBERT HANLEY MOVE TO APPROVE TOP YOU SECOND.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
[03:05:02]
IS THAT RIGHT? I'M SORRY.IS THE WHOLE ITEM UP? THERE WAS A SECOND PAGE TO IT.
I'M PULLING OFF THE WHAT'S NOTICED.
IT SAYS A POINT A AND THEN THE NEXT PAGE STARTS WITH 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, AND SIX.
AND YOU'RE ADDING, UM, ZONING.
I DON'T, YOU'RE ADDING ZONING.
WAS I
SO CAN WE HAVE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER THAT ITEM? A MOTION FOR RECONSIDER? MOTION TO RECONSIDER A MOTION TO RECONSIDER FROM MALDONADO.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? OKAY.
SO WE'RE BACK ON ITEM 23 5 DASH 27.
OKAY, BACK TO MY NUMBER SIX MALDONADO AGAIN.
SO YOU CAN SEE WHERE ALL THE ZONING, UH, THE NEW DISTRICTS WERE ADDED ON TO, TO BE INCLUDED.
BUT IF YOU LOOK AT NUMBER SIX, IT SAYS THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
UM, SO IT JUST NEEDS TO SEE, SAY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
AND THEN THERE NEEDS TO BE A CLEAR DELINEATION FOR, UM, WHEN IT'S IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT OR IN AN N C D.
IT'S NOT THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
IT WOULD BE THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER OR THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORIC OR THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
SO THOSE ARE MY TWO EDITS FOR ITEM SIX, JUST TO CLEAN UP THE LANGUAGE TO REFERENCE THE APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENTS.
I'LL MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED.
SO, SO FOR YOUR COMMENTS HERE, FOR THE PROVISIONS IN THE U D C THAT ARE NOT DISCUSSED TODAY OR NOT EVEN DISCUSSED FOR THIS CYCLE THAT HAS A LANGUAGE CHANGE AND WE'RE NOT ADDRESSING TODAY, WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN TO THEM? WELL, IT'S, SO THIS IS AN ITEM THAT IS ON THE AGENDA.
THIS SECTION OF THE CODE IS ON THE AGENDA.
THIS WE SHOW, UM, THE OTHER SECTIONS OF THE CODE IN BLACK THAT ARE EXISTING CODE.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE.
THE DISCUSSION CAN HAPPEN BECAUSE THE WHOLE SECTION IS ON THE AGENDA TO BE CONSIDERED.
AND THESE ARE CLEANUP CLARIFYING AMENDMENTS.
SO IT'S NOT CHANGING THE INTENT OF THE CODE.
LIKE, UH, T C I THIS IS GONNA BE REMOVED ACROSS THE WHOLE U D C.
WELL WE WILL, WHAT WE HAVE COMMITTED TO DO IS ANY AMENDMENTS THAT ARE BEING CONSIDERED, WE WILL CLEAN UP THOSE DEPARTMENTS THAT ARE NOT REFERENCED CORRECTLY.
WE'RE NOT GONNA GO THROUGH THE ENTIRE U D C AND CLEAN THAT UP.
UM, TO CLARIFY, EACH DEPARTMENT, UM, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT OTHER OPTIONS IN THE FUTURE ON HOW TO ADDRESS THOSE BECAUSE IT, IT'S CLARIFYING LANGUAGE.
UM, WE ALL UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS AND WHO THESE REVIEWS GO TO.
THE, THE PROBLEM IS A LOT OF THE TIMES THE DEPARTMENT NAMES CHANGE OVER THE YEARS AND JUST TRYING TO KEEP UP WITH THAT OVER TIME IS, HAS BEEN A LITTLE BIT CHALLENGING.
SO, UM, MS. MELDON MADE THE MOTION, BUT DOES THAT NEED TO BE MR. HANLEY AGAIN SINCE HE READ THE MEET THE ORIGINAL ONE? OR SHE CAN MAKE A NEW MOTION? IT CAN BE A NEW MOTION.
IT, YEAH, IT WAS RECONSIDERED.
SO ANYONE CAN MAKE THE AMENDMENT.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THE PROPOSED CHANGES SHE'S RECOMMENDING ARE ACTUALLY BEING DONE.
'CAUSE WE'VE BEEN TALKING AND I HAVEN'T PAID ATTENTION TO WHAT'S BEEN MAKING ME
YOU WERE SAYING, SO THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRES, THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION SHOULD BE THE ONE THAT REVIEWS THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT.
NO, THE ONLY REVIEW, I'LL CLARIFY NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, NCDS, THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, THOSE ARE REVIEWED BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
SO WE CAN UPDATE THE LANGUAGE TO REFLECT THE NCDS REVIEWED BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
AND ANYTHING THAT IS IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT WILL BE REVIEWED BY OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
SO WE'LL JUST SEPARATE THOSE TWO OUT.
I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY THE BEST THING TO DO.
SO MY MOTION WILL BE AS THEY AMEND IT, TO SEPARATE IT OUT HOWEVER THE WORDING FALLS.
SO, SO ARE YOU SAYING YOU WANT IT TO SAY THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES OR THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER BECAUSE WE HAVE HISTORIC I THINK WE SHOULD, I THINK WE SHOULD SPECIFICALLY BREAK IT DOWN WITH D SS D, CORRECT.
AND THEN O H P, NOT THOSE ACRONYMS, BUT, UM, BECAUSE I WANNA MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS
[03:10:02]
RIGHT.'CAUSE O H P IS NOT UNDERNEATH D S D, THEY ARE STANDALONE.
AND SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO DELINEATE THE TWO.
WHY WE'RE MAKING THOSE CHANGES.
IS THERE A SPACE BETWEEN ZONE AND MF AND NUMBER FIVE AT THE END THERE IN THE ADDITION ZONED MF, DO WE HAVE TO FINISH THE WHOLE AGENDA RIGHT THERE WHERE LOGAN WAS POINTING.
WE ONLY HAVE THIS AND ONE MORE ITEM.
SO I'LL, I'LL LET THEM FINISH THIS.
SO RATHER THAN SAYING THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION, CAN WE SAY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER? AND JUST A QUESTION IN GENERAL.
SO, SO AS YOU GO THROUGH AND I GUESS CODIFY THESE, YOU'RE GONNA GO THROUGH AND CHECK THE SPACINGS AND ALL THAT JUST TO MAKE AN OVERALL ADJUSTMENT IF IT'S NEEDED, JUST KIND OF AUTOMATICALLY, RIGHT? YES.
AND UM, IF THERE ARE NUMBERS THAT ARE OFF, UM, WE CORRECT THOSE AS WELL AS, YOU KNOW, ANY, IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT IS MISSPELLED, WE MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING HAS BEEN CORRECTED.
UM, WE DO THE BEST THAT WE CAN.
I THINK THE LAST TIME WE HAD 700 PAGES OF AMENDMENTS, UM, SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A HEAVY LIFT, BUT WE WORK CLOSELY WITH MUNI CODE TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE, UH, TRYING TO CATCH ALL THE ERRORS.
GEORGE WILL BE SO HAPPY TO KNOW YOU'RE THINKING OF HIM AND HIS ABSENCE.
IS THAT LANGUAGE GOOD OR ARE WE, I THINK WE'RE ALMOST THERE.
DISTRICT COMMA, THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
CAN I ASK A QUESTION OF LEGAL BECAUSE THERE, SUSAN, NO.
SO BECAUSE THIS IS UP THERE, I COULD HAVE MADE A MOTION TO JUST DELETE ITEM SIX.
I MEAN, I, I, I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE.
I I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE.
BUT YOU'RE SAYING WE CAN DO THAT IF, IF TO DELETE ALL OF ITEM SIX? YEAH.
IT WASN'T EVEN THE SUBJECT OF THE DEAL AS WE'RE SEEING RIGHT NOW.
I THINK WHEN I, AND, AND SUSAN, I'M NOT SPEAKING FOR YOU.
UM, BUT WHEN I SPOKE EARLIER, I MENTIONED THAT THIS IS A CLARIFICATION.
IT IS NOT, UH, CHANGING THE INTENT OF THE CODE.
I WOULD SAY THAT THIS IS POSS AN ACCEPTABLE CHANGE, BUT IF WE ARE CHANGING THE INTENT OF THE CODE, THEN THAT THAT IS GONNA DRAW SOME CONCERN.
SUSAN, IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT YOU WANNA ADD TO CLARIFY OR CORRECT ME, I'M PLEASE DO SO.
I MEAN, DRAW MY ATTENTION IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT'S SUBSTANTIVE IN JUST SIX.
I MEAN, I DO SEE IT AS CLARIFYING THE DEPARTMENT, WHICH ACTUALLY MUNI CODE WAS ALERTED MANY YEARS AGO TO MAKE THAT CHANGE.
THEY HAVEN'T DONE IT, SO OBVIOUSLY WE'RE DOING IT ONE BY ONE, BUT IF THERE'S ANYTHING SUBSTANTIVE, THEN THAT'S PROBABLY OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS.
BUT I'M JUST SAYING, WELL, I WANT IT TO BE, 'CAUSE WE'LL BE HERE FOREVER IF, IF, IF PEOPLE SEE SOMETHING THAT THEY JUST DON'T LIKE IN, IN ONE OF THE SECTIONS.
SO I'LL JUST FILLER UNTIL, THANK YOU KEN.
AND I THINK WE'RE THERE, LAUREN? UH, RILEY? YEP.
SO THE LANGUAGE ON THE SCREEN IS THE FINAL PROPOSED LANGUAGE AS REQUESTED.
WE, OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MS. MALDONADO.
I HEARD A SECOND FROM MR. VASQUEZ.
IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.
I ITEM NUMBER, UH, 24 5 DASH FIVE JASMINE WELLING PLAN REVIEW STAFF AMENDMENT SUMMARY OF THIS PROPOSED UPDATE, UM, MOST NOTABLE IS JUST REMOVING THE TEXT FOR, UH, TOWNHOUSE SUBDIVISION PLATS REMOVING, UM, THAT LANGUAGE DESIGNATING ALL LOTS IN THE SUBDIVISION TO BE LIMITED TO TOWNHOUSE USE.
SO IN SUMMARY, NOT EVERY LOT WITHIN THAT
[03:15:01]
TOWNHOUSE SUBDIVISION PLATT MUST BE USED, UH, FOR SET DEVELOPMENT OF A TOWNHOUSE SPECIFICALLY.AND I'LL DEFER TO LOGAN FOR FURTHER EXPLANATION.
YEAH, SO I, IN SHORT THIS POPPED UP BECAUSE WE HAD A DEVELOPMENT, UH, BACK IN, I THINK IT WAS EARLY 2019, WHERE THEY HAD PLATTED OUT THE SUBDIVISION AS A TOWNHOUSE PLATT.
UH, OUR CODE REQUIRES THAT IF YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TOWN HOMES TOWNHOUSE SUBDIVISION AS A SPECIAL NOTE THAT HAS TO APPEAR ON THE PLAT.
AND THAT PLAT HAD LOTS THAT WERE CLEARLY INTENDED TO BE BUILT OUT AS TOWN HOMES, BUT IT ALSO HAD LOTS THAT WERE CLEARLY NOT INTENDED TO BE TOWN HOMES.
SO WE ARE TRYING TO UPDATE THE CODE TO SAY THAT JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE A NOTE ON THE PLAT THAT SAYS THIS IS A TOWNHOUSE SUBDIVISION DOES NOT MEAN THAT EVERYTHING WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THAT PLATT HAS TO BE DEVELOPED AS A TOWN HOME.
UH, WE SEE THIS SOMETIMES IN SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE, YOU KNOW, YOU COME IN OFF THE STREET TO TOWN HOMES AND THE FURTHER YOU GO INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT TURNS INTO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
SO THIS IS JUST INTENDED TO PROVIDE THE FLEXIBILITY MIXED DO.
ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE? MOVE APPROVAL.
UM, SO YOU'RE SAYING THERE'S A PLATT THERE'S A NOTE ON THE PLAT THAT SAYS IT HAS TO BE TOWN HOMES.
AND YOU'RE TRYING TO CHANGE THAT BY CODE, BUT I STILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE IT AS ANOTHER LOT.
UH, ANOTHER OWNER IN THAT LOT.
YEAH, THIS, I CAN STILL ENFORCE THAT NOTE THAT PLAT THIS, THIS WOULD NOT NEGATE ANY PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLATT.
SO WHAT THIS AMENDMENT WOULD REQUIRE IS YOU HAVE TO MOVING FORWARD, YOU HAVE TO PUT A NOTE ON THE PLAT THAT SAYS WHICH LOTS ARE GOING TO BE DEVELOPED AS TOWN HOMES.
IS THERE A SECOND? ONLY FOR THE PLANS THAT HAS TOWN HOMES INCLUDED? CORRECT.
IF, IF THE PLATT DOES NOT INTRODUCE ANY TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT, THEN THERE IS NO NEED WHATSOEVER THEN THAT NOTE ABOUT TOWN HOMES WOULD NOT APPEAR SECOND BY MS. TACKETT.
I GOT A SECOND FROM MS. MALDONADO.
ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? OKAY.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.
ALRIGHT, THE LAST ITEM UP FOR CONSIDERATION TODAY IS, UH, THE RESULT OF RID 2017 DASH ZERO SIX.
SO WE HAVE A, UH, SUBSECTION OF 35 5 16 OH CALLED PREVIOUS PLATTS.
AND IT SAYS THE SETBACK LINE IS SHOWN ON THE PLATT DATED TWO YEARS PRIOR TO DECEMBER SEVEN, OR DECEMBER 2ND, 2004 SHALL BE RECOGNIZED AS THE OFFICIAL SETBACK.
WE RECOGNIZED THE SETBACK ESTABLISHED BY ZONING AS THE OFFICIAL SETBACK.
UH, THE ISSUE WE WERE RUNNING INTO IS THAT FOR MANY YEARS IN SAN ANTONIO, WE WERE REQUIRED THAT YOU SHOWED THE SETBACK ON YOUR PLAT.
AND THEN IN 2001 WE ADOPTED CODES THAT CHANGED ALL THE SETBACKS.
SO WE HAD PROPERTY OWNERS SAYING, WAIT, I'M CONFUSED.
DO I HAVE A 10 FOOT SETBACK OR A 15? THIS RID WAS INTENDED TO CLARIFY THAT EFFECTIVE 2017, THE ONLY SETBACK AND FORTH BY THIS DEPARTMENT IS THAT REQUIRED BY ZONING.
SO THAT'S ALL THIS, UH, AMENDMENT SEEKS TO DO.
THIS IS MINIMIZING THE CONFUSION.
MICHAEL, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? YOU SAID, YOU SAID, YOU SAID IT PERFECTLY.
MALDONA HAVE MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.
UH, LAST ITEM, SECOND TO LAST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.
ARE THERE ANY EDITS, ROBERT LEY MOVE APPROVAL? UM, I THINK BIANCA HAD A, AN EDIT.
BIANCA, MY ONLY EDIT IS THAT WE INCLUDE THE WRITTEN COMMENTS THAT WERE EMAILED TO US ON FEBRUARY 28TH AT NINE 30 ISH.
THERE WERE FOUR ATTACHMENTS AND THOSE ARE WRITTEN COMMENTS THAT WERE SUBMITTED THAT THEY BE INCLUDED IN THE MINUTES.
THOSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED.
SO, BUT WE DEFINITELY CAN ADD THEM.
THEY SHOULD BEEN IN EVERY MINUTE.
UM, THAT SINCE WE'VE STARTED, I THINK THEY'RE MENTIONED AS IN ONE SUPPORT, ONE OPPOSITION KIND OF ACCOUNT.
BUT I WOULD LIKE FOR ANYTHING THAT WAS SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO BECOME PART OF OUR MINUTES.
UM, AND I JUST, THIS WAS DONE THROUGH THE BOND CYCLE.
IT'S A LEVEL OF TRANSPARENCY, SOMETHING, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO DO AN OPEN RECORDS, BUT CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR? I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND.
'CAUSE HERE WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT WHERE THERE ARE PEOPLE WHEN THEY'RE COMING IN TO SPEAK.
UM, I JUST WANT THE WRITTEN COMMENTS THAT WERE EMAILED OUT TO US AS PTAC MEMBERS.
[03:20:01]
FOUR ATTACHMENTS ON FEBRUARY 28TH, 2022.THEY WERE SENT BY MS. CHAVEZ, I BELIEVE.
I'M JUST ASKING THAT THOSE HARD COPIES BE INCLUDED AS OPPOSED TO A SMALL SUMMARY LIKE THIS.
SO YOU WANT THEM AS AN ATTACHMENT ALMOST? YES.
THEY'RE ALL ATTACHMENTS OR AN EXHIBIT.
AN EXHIBIT OR ATTACHMENT TO THE MINUTES.
I'LL TAKE CARE OF YOUR NAME TAG.
SO WE DON'T DO THAT FOR OUR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.
WE REFLECT THE SUMMARY, UH, ON ALL OF OUR MINUTES.
SO I I AM GONNA HAVE TO LOOK INTO SEE HOW WE CAN HANDLE THAT.
'CAUSE WE DON'T DO VERBATIM MINUTES.
WE DON'T DO VERBATIM MINUTES AND I THINK THAT THE U D C DOESN'T GET AMENDED EVERY YEAR, NOR IS WHEN WE DO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASES OR PLANNING, UH, CASES.
THOSE ARE USUALLY PARCEL SPECIFIC CASES.
THESE ARE IN SITUATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'RE HAVING THAT ARE CITYWIDE AND WE'RE A SUBCOMMITTEE AND WE'RE, WE DON'T MEET EVERY YEAR.
WE DON'T MEET EVERY THREE YEARS TO DO THIS.
SO I'M JUST ASKING FOR A LEVEL OF TRANSPARENCY THAT WE RECEIVE THAT INFORMATION EMAILED TO US AND I JUST THINK IT SHOULD BE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE.
THERE WAS NO PROBLEM WITH DOING IT FOR THE BOND PROCESS.
ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENT WAS AVAILABLE AND DOWNLOADED STAFF IS WORKING VERY DILIGENTLY TO PUT IT TOGETHER TO US IN AN EXCEL SPREADSHEET.
AND I JUST THINK IT SHOULD BE AVAILABLE IF WE'RE CONSIDERING IT, UM, DURING OUR DELIBERATIONS.
AND THEY EXIST ALREADY AS ATTACHMENTS.
IT'S NOT DIFFICULT TO ADD 'EM ON AS EXHIBITS.
SO AS A MATTER OF FERENCE AS A MATTER OF REFERENCE.
AND I KNOW THAT ON SOME OTHER MEETINGS IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S READ AND SO, SO KIND OF READ INTO DIALOGUE AS FAR AS WHEN THEY COME ACROSS THEM, WHICH THEN BECOMES PART OF THE SPEAKING PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD SO IT CAN BE REFERENCED BACK AND SO MINIMALLY I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD OPTION TOO.
SO SUSAN, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD? NO, I JUST ECHO THAT.
IN THE CITY, THE CITY COUNCIL, ANY OF THE COMMISSIONS BOARDS HAVE VERBATIM TRANSCRIBED MINUTES.
THEY ARE A SUMMARY OF WHAT'S HAPPENED, THE ACTIONS TAKEN, WHAT THE ITEM IS AND WHAT THE ACTION WAS TAKEN.
SO COULD WE PROVIDE EXHIBITS? LET ME, LET ME PONDER ON THAT A LITTLE BIT.
'CAUSE UH, THAT MAYBE THERE'S SOME OTHER OPTIONS, BUT PUTTING THEM INTO THE MINUTES, IT IS ALREADY TAKING US VERY LONG TIME TO GET THE MINUTES DONE TO ADD THAT OTHER LAYER.
I'M GONNA GET MINUTES TO YOU ON TIME FOR THE FOLLOWING MEETINGS.
SO WE DO THE VERY BEST THAT WE CAN TO MAKE SURE THE MINUTES ARE COMPLETED AND PUT WITHIN THE AGENDA WHEN IT'S POSTED SO THAT EVERYBODY HAS THE SAME INFORMATION.
UM, IF WE START ADDING MORE LAYERS TO THAT THERE, WE MAY HAVE DELAYS.
UM, BUT THERE MAYBE THERE'S SOME OTHER OPTIONS.
MS. SUSAN, CAN YOU KEEP A RECORDING SOMEWHERE? ALL OF THESE MEETINGS ARE LIVE STREAM AND THEY'RE PART OF PUBLIC RECORD AND SO THAT WOULD SUFFICE PERHAPS SINCE THERE IS A RECORDING, IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO HEAR, THERE BECOMES A QUESTION.
WE'VE GOT AN ABILITY TO ACCESS THAT.
THAT WE DON'T READ WRITTEN COMMENT INTO THE RECORD.
WE RECEIVED IT VIA EMAIL AND WE READ IT, BUT IT'S NOT READ INTO THE AUDIO.
SO IF SOMEBODY WERE TO WATCH OUR MEETING, THEY WOULD NOT KNOW WHAT WE RECEIVED AND WHO WE RECEIVED IT FROM, NOR ANY OF THE TECHNICAL INFORMATION.
THEY A VOICE MESSAGE YOU MEAN? CORRECT.
UNLESS IT WAS A VOICE MESSAGE.
SO I'M ONLY ASKING FOR WHAT WE RECEIVED VIA EMAIL TODAY.
WE GOT AN EMAIL PACKET THIS MORNING AND WE GOT ONE DURING, BEFORE THE LAST MEETING FOR THAT TO BE MADE AVAILABLE.
WHAT I HAVE COMMITTED TO DO IS WE'LL CONSIDER SOME OPTIONS AND BRING THAT TO THE UM, P TAC AT OUR NEXT MEETING.
I DON'T RECOMMEND THAT IT BE ADDED TO THE MINUTES.
UH, WE NEEDED AN APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FIRST
I THOUGHT WE ALREADY, NO, WE GOT A MOTION FROM MR. HANLEY FOR THE MINUTES BY CHANCE, CAN WE TABLE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES DIRECTION ADDED BOTH TO APPROVE IF THERE IS A CONSENSUS TO TABLE THE MINUTES? SURE.
UH, THEY, THEY WILL HAVE TO HAVE A MOTION FOR THAT.
WE DON'T HAVE A SECOND ON THE MOTION.
SECOND THE MINUTES SECOND FOR MS. TACKETT.
SO DO WE NEED A ROLL CALL VOTE? I WOULD RECOMMEND IT, YES.
STAFF, CAN YOU PLEASE DO A ROLL CALL VOTE ON APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND PLEASE REFLECT THAT MR. BROWN HAS LEFT THE MEETING AND SO HE'S NOT PRESENT FOR, UH, THIS VOTE.
[03:25:02]
MR. GARCIA.A MOTION THAT WE TABLE OUR MINUTES TILL THE NEXT MEETING.
MOTION FROM MS. MALDONADO AND SECOND FROM MR. FULLERTON TO TABLE THE MINUTES.
ANY DIRECT REPORT? NO DIRECTOR'S REPORT FOR TODAY? OTHER THAN THE SAY I THINK WE'RE 85 AMENDMENTS IN, WE'RE WE'RE MAKING PRETTY GOOD TIME AGAIN.
STILL FINISHED A LITTLE EARLY.
MAYBE THE REMAINING 155 NEXT WEEK.
I THINK WE HAVE A SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING.
WE STILL HAVE THAT BY WEBEX ON THURSDAY MORNING? THAT IS CORRECT.